Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Interstate Transport Plan; Interference With Visibility Requirement, 13944-13962 [2011-6003]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13944
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
shall constitute the official record of the
proceeding.
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
§ 952.33
Written comments must be
received at the address below on or
before April 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R09–OAR–2011—0131 by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: Wamsley.Jerry@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention:
Jerry Wamsley).
4. Mail: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region 9,
Air Division, Planning Office (Air-2), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such
deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011—
0131. Our policy is that EPA will
include all comments received in the
public docket without change. EPA may
make comments available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, EPA will include
your e-mail address as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
DATES:
Public information.
The Librarian of the Postal Service
maintains for public inspection in the
Library copies of all initial, tentative
and final agency decisions and orders.
The Recorder maintains the complete
official record of every proceeding.
§ 952.34
Ex parte communications.
The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 551(14),
556(d), and 557(d) prohibiting ex parte
communications apply to proceedings
under these rules of practice.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2011–5872 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011—0131, FRL–9280–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
California; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan and Interstate
Transport Plan; Interference With
Visibility Requirement
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that
addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period through 2018.
This revision addresses the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’) and EPA’s rules that require
states to prevent any future and remedy
any existing anthropogenic impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants
from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as
the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas.
In addition, we are proposing to
approve certain portions of this
Regional Haze SIP revision and a related
SIP revision submitted by California on
November 16, 2007, as meeting the
requirements of CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference
with other states’ measures to protect
visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute). Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at
the EPA Region 9, Air Division,
Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA
requests that you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 9–5:30 PST, excluding Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry
Wamsley, U.S.E.P.A., Region 9, Air
Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105; via telephone at (415) 947–4111;
or via electronic mail at
wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our,’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittals
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport Pollution and
Visibility Requirements
III. What are the requirements for regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
E. Long Term Strategy
F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP
and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
IV. EPA’s Analysis of the California Regional
Haze Plan
A. Affected Class I Areas in California
B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate
of Progress
1. Baseline and Natural Visibility
Conditions
2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
C. California Emissions Inventories
D. Sources of Visibility Impairment
1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in
California Class I Areas
2. California Contributions to Visibility
Impairment in Class I Areas Outside of
the State
E. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Evaluation
1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART
2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility
Impairment
3. Sources Already Controlled to BART
F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the
Reasonable Progress Goals
1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress
Goals
2. Interstate Consultation
G. Long-Term Strategy
1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
a. Mobile Source Programs
b. Stationary and Area Source Regulations
by Local Air Agencies
2. Construction Activities
3. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
4. Smoke Management Programs
5. Enforceability of Measures in the LongTerm Strategy
H. Monitoring Strategy
I. Federal Land Manager Consultation and
Coordination
J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-year
Progress Reports
V. EPA’s Analysis of How California’s
Regional Haze Plan Meets Interstate
Transport Requirements
VI. EPA’s Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. The State’s Submittals
Today’s proposed action concerns two
submittals from California. The first
submittal from the state is the California
Regional Haze Plan (CRHP). The second
submittal from the state is the 2007
Transport SIP, submitted as Appendix C
to the State Strategy for California’s
2007 State Implementation Plan for the
1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. Details on both
submittals follow below.
The California Air Resource Board
(ARB) submitted the California Regional
Haze Plan (CRHP) to EPA on March 16,
2009.1 ARB submitted additional
materials to EPA on September 8, 2009.2
After discussion with EPA staff
regarding BART-eligible sources, ARB
submitted updated information about
these sources on June 9, 2010.3 ARB’s
1 See the following documents: Transmittal letter
dated March 16, 2009 from James N. Goldstene,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board,
to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator
USEPA Region IX; and, State of California, Air
Resource Board Resolution 09–4, dated January 22,
2009, adopting the California Regional Haze Plan.
2 Transmittal letter dated September 8, 2009 from
James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California
Air Resources Board, to Laura Yoshii, Acting
Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with
attachments.
3 Transmittal letter dated June 9, 2010 from James
N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
March 16, 2009 submittal includes
public process documentation for the
CRHP and documentation of a duly
noticed public hearing held on January
22, 2009.
On November 16, 2007, ARB
submitted the State Strategy for
California’s 2007 State Implementation
Plan to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 State Strategy).4
Appendix C of the 2007 State Strategy,
as modified by Attachment A,5 contains
the ‘‘Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 to satisfy the
Requirements of Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of California’’
(2007 Transport SIP). The 2007
Transport SIP addresses the Transport
SIP requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
ARB’s November 16, 2007 submittal
includes public process documentation
for the 2007 State Strategy, including
the 2007 Transport SIP. In addition, the
SIP revision includes documentation of
a duly noticed public hearing held on
September 27, 2007 on the proposed
2007 State Strategy.
For the portion of today’s proposed
action related to the 2007 Transport SIP,
we are proposing action only with
regard to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirement that the SIP must prohibit
any source or other type of emissions
activity in California from emitting
pollutants that will interfere with
another state’s measures to protect
visibility. EPA intends to act in separate
proposals on other portions of
California’s 2007 Transport SIP that
address the remaining elements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.6
Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with attachments.
4 See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007,
from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution
No. 07–28 (September 27, 2007).
5 See ‘‘Technical and Clarifying Modifications to
April 26, 2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board’s
Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State
Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised Draft
Appendices A through G,’’ included as Attachment
A to CARB’s Board Resolution 07–28 (September
27, 2007).
6 The other elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that California emission
sources do not (a) contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS in any other State, (b) interfere with
maintenance of these standards by any other State,
and (c) interfere with measures required under Part
C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of
air quality in regard to these standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13945
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment
produced by a multitude of sources and
activities located across a broad
geographic area that emit fine particles
(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and in
some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC)). Fine
particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form fine particulate
matter which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color,
and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental impacts,
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring
network, show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution
occurs virtually all the time at most
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range in many Class I
areas (i.e., national parks and memorial
parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to
two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution.7 In most of the eastern Class
I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in
the nation’s national parks and
wilderness areas.8 This section of the
7 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
8 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA and after consulting with the Department of
the Interior, EPA promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value.
44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
Continued
15MRP1
13946
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ On
December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084.
These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility
impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999,
the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR
35713). The RHR revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate
provisions addressing regional haze
impairment and to establish a
comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some
of the main elements of the regional
haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The
requirement to submit a regional haze
plan revision to the SIP applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia and the
Virgin Islands.9 40 CFR 51.308(b)
requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longmandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate
as Class I additional areas which they consider to
have visibility as an important value, the
requirements of the visibility program set forth in
section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term
‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’
9 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico
must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under
the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section
74–2–4).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
term regional coordination among
states, tribal governments and various
federal agencies. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to address
effectively the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need
to develop coordinated strategies with
one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction
on the air quality in another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
EPA has encouraged the states and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP), one of five RPOs nationally, is
a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal,
Federal, and local air agencies dealing
with air quality in the west. WRAP
member states include: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members
include Campo Band of Kumeyaay
Indians, Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian
Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation
of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of
Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern
Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma,
Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall.
D. Interstate Transport Pollution and
Visibility Requirements
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated
new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for
PM2.5. See 62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652.
Section 110(a)(1)requires states to
submit a plan to address certain
requirements for a new or revised
NAAQS within three years after
promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter time as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the
elements that such new plan
submissions must address, as
applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the
interstate transport of certain emissions.
On April 25, 2005, EPA issued a
‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Interstate Transport for the 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 70 FR
21147. This included a finding that
California and other states had failed to
submit SIPs to address interstate
transport of emissions affecting
visibility and started a two-year clock
for the promulgation of a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA,
unless the state made a submission to
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such
submission. Id.
On August 15, 2006, EPA issued
guidance on this topic entitled,
‘‘Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ (‘‘2006 Guidance’’).
As identified in the 2006 Guidance,
the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
require each state to have a SIP that
prohibits emissions that adversely affect
other states in ways contemplated in the
statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains
four distinct requirements related to the
impacts of interstate transport. The SIP
must prevent sources in the state from
emitting pollutants in amounts which
will: (1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states; (2) interfere with maintenance of
the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere
with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in other
states; or, (4) interfere with efforts to
protect visibility in other states.
With respect to establishing that
emissions from sources in the state
would not interfere with measures in
other states to protect visibility, the
2006 Guidance recommended that states
make a submission indicating that it
was premature, at that time, to
determine whether there would be any
interference with measures in the
applicable SIP for another state
designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ until the
submission and approval of regional
haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were
required to be submitted by December
17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later
point in time, however, EPA believes it
is now necessary to evaluate such
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from
a state to ensure that the existing SIP, or
the SIP as modified by the submission,
contains adequate provisions to prevent
interference with the visibility programs
of other states, such as for consistency
with the assumptions for controls relied
upon by other states in establishing
reasonable progress goals to address
regional haze.
The regional haze program, as
reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
importance of addressing the long-range
transport of pollutants for visibility and
encourages states to work together to
develop plans to address haze. The
regulations explicitly require each state
to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission
reductions needed to meet the
reasonable progress goals for
neighboring Class I areas. Working
together through a regional planning
process, states are required to address
an agreed upon share of their
contribution to visibility impairment in
the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, we anticipate that
regional haze SIPs will contain
measures that will achieve these
emissions reductions, and that these
measures will meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
As a result of the regional planning
efforts in the west, all states in the
WRAP region contributed information
to a Technical Support System (TSS)
which provides an analysis of the
causes of haze, and the levels of
contribution from all sources within
each state to the visibility degradation of
each Class I area. The WRAP states
consulted in the development of
reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation
process to co-develop their reasonable
progress goals for the western Class I
areas. The modeling done by the WRAP
relied on assumptions regarding
emissions over the relevant planning
period and embedded in these
assumptions were anticipated emissions
reductions in each of the states in the
WRAP, including reductions from
installation of Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) at appropriate
sources and other measures to be
adopted as part of the state’s long-term
strategy for addressing regional haze.
The reasonable progress goals in the
draft and final regional haze SIPs that
have now been prepared by states in the
west accordingly are based, in part, on
the emissions reductions from nearby
states that were agreed on through the
WRAP process.
California’s 2007 Transport SIP refers
to EPA’s 2006 Guidance and states that
the Regional Haze SIP would address
interstate regional haze impacts. We
interpret this to mean that California
intended its Regional Haze Plan to
address the interstate visibility
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, our evaluation of
the 2007 Transport SIP and whether it
meets these CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
visibility requirements relies on our
evaluation of relevant information from
California’s Regional Haze Plan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
III. What are the requirements for
regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations require states
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as
the principal metric for measuring
visibility. This visibility metric
expresses uniform changes in haziness
in terms of common increments across
the entire range of visibility conditions,
from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in
deciviews is determined by using air
quality measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the
value of light extinction using a
logarithm function. The deciview is a
more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than
light extinction itself because each
deciview change is an equal incremental
change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a
change in visibility at one deciview.10
The deciview is used to express
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (which
are interim visibility goals towards
meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current and natural
conditions, and tracking changes in
visibility. The regional haze SIPs must
contain measures that ensure
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in
Class I areas caused by anthropogenic
air pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources
of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
10 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13947
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program (40
CFR 81.401–437), and, as part of the
process for determining reasonable
progress, states must calculate the
degree of existing visibility impairment
at each Class I area at the time of each
regional haze SIP submittal and
periodically review progress every five
years midway through each ten-year
implementation period. To do this, the
RHR requires states to determine the
degree of impairment (in deciviews) for
the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most
impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a
specified time period at each of their
Class I areas. In addition, states must
also develop an estimate of natural
visibility conditions for the purpose of
comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility
impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those
estimates. EPA has provided guidance
to states regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural and current visibility
conditions in documents titled, EPA’s
Guidance for Estimating Natural
Visibility Conditions Under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–005 located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for
Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004
September 2003 located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred
to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance’’).
For the first regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
visibility impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five-year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13948
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
amount of progress made. In general, the
2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which
improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of regional haze SIPs from the
states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two
distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one
for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) ten-year
implementation period. The RHR does
not mandate specific milestones or rates
of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions. In setting reasonable
progress goals (RPGs), states must
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) ten-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA
and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and, (4) the remaining
useful life of any potentially affected
sources. States must demonstrate in
their SIPs how these factors are
considered when selecting the RPGs for
the best and worst days for each
applicable Class I area. States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007,
memorandum from William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, to EPA Regional
Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp.
4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress
Guidance’’). In setting the RPGs, states
must also consider the rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by 2064 (referred to as the
‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) or the
‘‘glide path’’) and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the ten-year period of the
SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by
the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress that states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of
progress they expect to achieve. In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
setting RPGs, each state with one or
more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must
also consult with potentially
‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby
states with emission sources that may be
affecting visibility impairment at the
Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources 11 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)’’ as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such
‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts, a state must use the
approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX and PM. EPA
has indicated that states should use
11 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’
potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
their best judgment in determining
whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states
may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below
which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emission sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. An exemption threshold set by
the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify
potential BART sources, described in
the RHR as ‘‘BART-eligible sources’’, and
document their BART control
determination analyses. In making
BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that
states consider the following factors: (1)
The costs of compliance; (2) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at
the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and, (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States are
free to determine the weight and
significance assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date EPA approves the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is
required by the RHR, general SIP
requirements mandate that the SIP must
also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting for the BART controls on
the source. States have the flexibility to
choose the type of control measures
they will use to meet the requirements
of BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the CAA that states
include in their regional haze SIP a ten-
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
to fifteen-year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the RHR requires that states include
a long-term strategy (LTS) in their
regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a
state will use during the
implementation period of the specific
SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs.
The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures needed
to achieve the reasonable progress goals’’
for all Class I areas within and affected
by emissions from the state. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area located in another state, the
RHR requires the impacted state to
coordinate with contributing states to
develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that
it has included in its SIP, all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the
emission reductions needed to meet the
RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs
have provided forums for significant
interstate consultation, but additional
consultation between states may be
required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues (e.g., where
two states belong to different RPOs).
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their LTS,
including stationary, minor, mobile, and
area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the following
seven factors listed below are taken into
account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the
RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations
and control measures; and, (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordination of the Regional Haze
SIP and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must
provide for a periodic review and SIP
revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission
of the state’s first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment,
which was due December 17, 2007, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and
(c). On or before this date, the state must
revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing RAVI and regional haze, and
the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional
haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and
periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively.
The periodic review of a state’s LTS
must report on both regional haze and
RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
requires a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting
on regional haze visibility impairment
that is representative of all mandatory
Class I areas within the state. The
strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e.,
review and use of monitoring data from
the network. The monitoring strategy is
due with the first regional haze SIP, and
it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also
provide for additional monitoring sites
if the IMPROVE network is not
sufficient to determine whether RPGs
will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the state;
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other states;
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13949
the state, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment
to update the inventory periodically;
and,
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to
cover an initial implementation period
extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and
revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every ten years thereafter.
Periodic SIP revisions must meet the
core requirements of section 51.308(d)
with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for
BART applies only to the first regional
haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART
must continue to comply with the BART
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted
above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure
that the statutory requirement of
reasonable progress will continue to be
met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
The RHR requires that states consult
with Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
before adopting and submitting their
SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must
provide FLMs an opportunity for
consultation, in person and at least sixty
days prior to holding any public hearing
on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to
discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to
offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the
development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility
impairment. Furthermore, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how
it addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide
procedures for continuing consultation
between the state and FLMs regarding
the state’s visibility protection program,
including development and review of
SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other
programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in
Class I areas.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13950
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
IV. EPA’s Analysis of the California
Regional Haze Plan
As described in Section I, the
California Regional Haze SIP consists of
the CRHP and two supplemental
submittals. ARB submitted the CRHP to
EPA on March 16, 2009. ARB submitted
additional materials to EPA on
September 8, 2009. ARB submitted
updated information about BARTeligible sources on June 9, 2010.
A. Affected Class I Areas in California
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
There are twenty-nine affected Class I
areas in California.12 These Class I areas
include the following national parks,
national monuments, and wilderness
areas managed by the U.S. National Park
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(USBLM):
1. Redwood National Park;
2. Marble Mountain Wilderness;
3. Lava Beds National Monument;
4. South Warner Wilderness;
5. Thousand Lakes Wilderness;
6. Lassen Volcanic National Park;
7. Caribou Wilderness;
8. Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness
(includes land managed by USBLM);
9. Point Reyes National Seashore;
10. Ventana Wilderness;
11. Pinnacles National Monument;
12. Desolation Wilderness;
13. Mokelumne Wilderness;
14. Emigrant Wilderness;
15. Hoover Wilderness;
16. Yosemite National Park;
17. Ansel Adams Wilderness;
18. Kaiser Wilderness;
19. John Muir Wilderness;
20. Kings Canyon National Park;
21. Sequoia National Park;
22. Dome Lands Wilderness (includes
land managed by the USBLM);
23. San Rafael Wilderness;
24. San Gabriel Wilderness;
25. Cucamonga Wilderness;
26. San Gorgonio Wilderness;
27. San Jacinto Wilderness;
28. Agua Tibia Wilderness; and,
29. Joshua Tree National Park.
As part of its analysis, ARB
apportioned the state’s twenty-nine
Class I areas into the following four sub12 See Figure 1–2, ‘‘California’s Class I Areas and
IMPROVE Monitoring Network, page 1–4, CRHP,
for a listing and a map showing the twenty-nine
Class I areas.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
regions: Northern California; Sierra
California; Coastal California; and,
Southern California. Within each subregion, the Class I areas are assigned to
a specific representative IMPROVE
monitor. For example, within the
Northern California sub-region, Class I
areas are assigned as follows: The
Marble Mountain Wilderness and the
Yolla-Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness are
assigned to the Trinity IMPROVE
monitor; the Lava Beds National
Monument and South Warner
Wilderness are assigned to the Lava
Beds IMPROVE monitor; and, the
Lassen Volcanic National Park, the
Caribou wilderness, and the Thousand
Lakes wilderness are assigned to the
Lassen Volcanic IMPROVE monitor.13
California’s four sub-regions for
analyzing regional haze represent
groupings that consider the unique
terrain, ecology, land use, and weather
patterns around each IMPROVE
monitor. ARB’s detailed examination of
the resultant ambient air monitoring
data showed similarities within
definable intra-State regions. These four
sub-regions are different from each other
based on physiographic features and
land use patterns. California has
grouped its Class I Areas by geographic
sub-region to facilitate comparison of
different landscapes, meteorological
conditions, the impacts of local and
regional emissions, and the results of
local and regional control measures.
California identified Class I areas
outside of the state that are affected by
California’s regional haze pollutants.
(CRHP, Figure 8.1) The CRHP also
examined specific visibility effects of
emissions on the following Class I areas
outside of the state: Jarbidge Wilderness
Area, Nevada; Kalmiopsis Wilderness
Area and Crater Lake National Park,
Oregon; and, Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness Area and Grand Canyon
National Park, Arizona.
To conclude, we believe that
California has identified all of Class I
areas in the state that may be affected by
emissions from California. Also,
California identified Class I areas in
13 Table 2–1, ‘‘IMPROVE monitors and Visibility
at California Class I Areas’’, page 2–3, CRHP
provides a detailed listing of IMPROVE monitor
assignments. Also, see Figure 2–1, CRHP,
‘‘California’s Geographic Sub-regions’’, page 2–6 for
a visual representation.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
neighboring states that may be affected
by emissions from California. (CRHP,
Figure 8.1)
B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform
Rate of Progress
ARB developed the visibility
estimates in the CRHP using models and
analytical tools provided by the WRAP.
We have reviewed the models and
analytical tools used by the WRAP and
those used by ARB in developing the
CHRP. In summary, we found that the
models were used appropriately,
consistent with EPA guidance in effect
at the time of their use. The models
used by the WRAP were state-of-thescience at the time the modeling was
conducted and model performance was
adequate for the purposes that they were
used.14
1. Baseline and Natural Visibility
Conditions
Baseline visibility conditions
represent the degree of visibility
impairment for the 20 percent least
impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five-year period.
Appendix B of the CRHP provides the
details of these 2000–2004 baseline
deciview calculations for each Class I
area.
For each Class I area, ARB calculated,
in deciviews, the current visibility
conditions (worst 20 percent of days) for
the 2000–2004 baseline period (Table 1,
column A) and the future natural
conditions for 2064 (Table 1, column D),
the long-term programmatic goal. ARB
calculated the deciview value
representing the best visibility days
during 2000–2004 baseline conditions, a
value that must be maintained in future
years.15
14 For our detailed review and discussion, please
see ‘‘Technical Support Document for Technical
Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air
Partnership in Support of Western Regional Haze
Plans’’, Final, February 2011 (WRAP TSD).
15 See Table 8 for a complete listing of the ‘‘best
20 percent of days’’ and ‘‘worst 20 percent of days’’
and a comparison between 2000–2004 and 2018
deciview values for each California Class I area.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13951
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—VISIBILITY CALCULATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS
[Grouped by related IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews]
2018
Reasonable
Progress Goal
(RPG)
(worst 20% of
days)
2018
Uniform Rate
of Progress
estimate
(URP)
2064 Natural
condition
Date natural
condition
reached at
RPG rate of
improvement
(A)
Class I Area (NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area,
NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore)
2000–04
Baseline
(worst 20% of
days)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly Middle Eel WA (TRIN
monitor) ............................................................................
Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ............
Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA
(LAVO monitor) ................................................................
Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) .................
Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ...............................................
Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ......................
Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS monitor) ...................................................................................
Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ................
Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ......................................
Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ............................................
Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ........................................
Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) .......................
San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) ..........................................
San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ............
San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ........
Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ............................................
Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ........................................
17.4
15.1
16.4
14.4
15.2
13.4
7.9
7.9
2137
2148
14.2
12.6
12.9
17.6
13.3
12.3
12.5
16.7
12.6
11.1
11.7
15.3
7.3
6.1
7.7
7.6
2123
2307
2186
2160
15.5
25.4
19.4
18.5
22.8
18.5
18.8
19.9
22.2
23.5
19.6
14.9
22.7
18.1
17.8
21.3
16.7
17.3
17.4
19.9
21.6
17.9
13.6
21.2
16.6
17.4
21.2
16.0
16.2
16.9
18.7
19.8
16.7
7.1
7.7
7.5
13.9
15.8
8.0
7.6
7.0
7.3
7.6
7.2
2200
2096
2132
2096
2069
2086
2109
2076
2095
2121
2106
Source: Table 7–2, page 7–10, CRHP.
2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate
ARB calculated the uniform rate of
progress (URP) estimate for each Class I
area using the 2000–2004 baseline
deciview and 2064 programmatic goal
deciview values. Essentially, the URP is
represented as the line drawn between
a given Class I area’s 2004 baseline
value and 2064 natural condition or
programmatic goal value. This line is
linear and assumes the same increment
of progress every year for 60 years.
Figure 7–1 of the CRHP provides an
illustration of the uniform rate of
progress calculation and its graphic
representation. ARB then calculated
each Class I area’s URP estimate for
2018.16 The URPs for each Class I area
are listed in Table 1, column C.
EPA has determined that California
has produced the following visibility
estimates in deciviews for each Class I
area: Baseline visibility conditions; a
ten-year reasonable progress estimate for
2018; a 2018 uniform rate of progress
estimate for comparison purposes; and a
2064 natural condition estimate. We
propose to find that these estimates are
consistent with the requirements of the
RHR, particularly those requirements at
40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) and (iii). Also, we
propose to find that California has
produced URP estimates consistent with
the requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
C. California Emissions Inventories
The RHR requires a statewide
emissions inventory of pollutants that
are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(v). In establishing baseline
visibility conditions in each Class I area,
the CRHP provides an emissions
inventory for 2002, representing the
mid-point of the 2000–2004 baseline
timeframe. Also, to chart progress in
each Class I area, the CRHP estimated
emissions for 2018, the first ten-year
programmatic milestone. The emissions
inventories estimate annual emissions
for the following haze producing
pollutants: Oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic
compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3),
particulate matter smaller than 10
microns but larger than 2.5 microns (PM
coarse), fine particulate matter from
organic carbon (OC Fine PM), fine
particulate matter from elemental
carbon (EC Fine PM), and fine
particulate matter from other sources
(Other Fine PM). The emissions
inventories are divided into four source
categories: Stationary sources, area
sources, mobile sources, and natural
sources. See Table 2. This information
was also analyzed to compare
anthropogenic versus natural sources of
emissions. See Table 3.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 2—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR CALIFORNIA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND
2018
[Tons per year]
Stationary (tpy)
Area (tpy)
Mobile (tpy)
Natural (tpy)
Pollutant
2002
NOX ..........................................
2018
2002
2018
2002
2018
104,991
109,514
112,988
112,789
909,380
370,385
16 See Table 7–2, ‘‘Summary of Reasonable
Progress Goal and Uniform Rate of Progress to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
Future Natural Conditions, 2018 Worst Days URP,’’
page 7–10, CRHP.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
2002
93,043
2018
93,043
13952
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR CALIFORNIA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND
2018—Continued
[Tons per year]
Stationary (tpy)
Area (tpy)
Mobile (tpy)
Natural (tpy)
Pollutant
2002
SO2 ...........................................
VOC .........................................
NH3 ...........................................
PM Coarse ...............................
Fine PM OC .............................
Fine PM EC .............................
Other PM Fine .........................
2018
42,227
54,632
433
10,172
5,515
933
10,537
2002
2002
2018
2002
2018
9,139
335,114
202,045
263,902
44,986
5,887
55,005
49,632
54,631
0
13,700
3,696
835
12,317
2018
10,134
594,843
193,486
291,429
36,777
5,503
54,016
11,588
518,405
22,679
5,075
13,991
21,577
2,125
3,800
232,839
30,430
6,389
15,834
12,589
2,929
9,840
2,890,198
7,595
23,124
92,097
19,078
5,880
9,840
2,890,198
7,595
23,124
92,097
19,078
5,880
Source: Table 3–2, ‘‘Individual Pollutants and Source Categories,’’ page 3–4 CRHP.
TABLE 3—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ANTHROPOGENIC AND NATURAL SOURCES
Source (tons/year)
Pollutant
Anthropogenic
NOX ........................................................................................................................................
SO2 ........................................................................................................................................
VOC .......................................................................................................................................
NH3 ........................................................................................................................................
PM Coarse .............................................................................................................................
OC Fine PM ...........................................................................................................................
EC Fine PM ...........................................................................................................................
Other PM Fine .......................................................................................................................
Natural
1,127,359
62,954
908,151
225,157
279,148
64,491
28,397
67,667
Anthropogenic
share (percent)
93,043
9,840
2,890,198
7,595
23,124
92,097
19,078
5,880
92
86
24
97
92
41
60
92
Source: Based on Table 3–1, ‘‘Overall Emission Source Inventory,’’ page 3–3 CRHP.
D. Sources of Visibility Impairment
Within Appendix B of the CRHP, ARB
analyzed the contribution of various
pollutants to light extinction (i.e.,
visibility impairment) for each Class I
area in the state. EPA compiled
California’s data for each of the Class I
areas into a single table. Table 4 shows
how much each pollutant contributed to
light extinction at each of California’s
Class I areas during the period from
2000 to 2004.
TABLE 4—PERCENTAGE OF LIGHT EXTINCTION CONTRIBUTED BY EACH POLLUTANT IN CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS ON
WORST 20% OF DAYS, 2000–2004
[Averaged observations]
NO3
and/or
AmNO3
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Class I area
Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor) ...............
Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) .....................................
Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA (LAVO monitor) ..
Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) ...........................................
Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) .........................................................................
Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ...............................................
Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS monitor) .....................
Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ..........................................
Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ................................................................
Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ......................................................................
Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ..................................................................
Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) .................................................
San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) ....................................................................
San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) .....................................
San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ..................................
Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) .....................................................................
Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ..................................................................
SO4
and/or
AmSO4
12.7
8.9
10.9
8.7
5.2
14.8
18.1
54.6
25.8
13.1
39.6
31.6
20.2
40.0
53.0
31.1
42.9
17.1
17.3
20.1
18.4
16.2
14.4
21.9
14.9
19.5
27.9
14.5
25.7
36.0
17.8
15.6
33
19.3
OMC
54.5
55.9
50.8
50.9
50.0
52.9
38.3
18.8
27.8
15.0
12.5
24.4
22.8
22.1
16.5
18.2
16.2
EC
8.6
8.4
9.1
10.8
7.8
8.8
7.2
5.2
6.3
2.8
3.4
8.5
4.9
6.2
6.1
6.7
6.5
CM
4.8
6.6
5.9
7.6
15.3
7.3
11.1
5.6
17.9
7.7
7.7
7.0
12.6
12.0
7.2
8.9
12.3
Soil
1.8
2.5
3.0
3.6
5.2
1.6
2.3
0.76
2.4
0.56
0.41
1.1
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.4
2.5
Sea
salt
0.6
0.3
0.09
0.07
0.32
0.18
0.56
0.25
0.32
33.0
21.9
1.7
1.8
0.58
0.24
0.83
0.31
Class I Abbreviations: NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore.
Pollutant Abbreviations: NO3 = Nitrate; AmNO3 = Ammonium Nitrate; SO4 = Sulfate; AmSO4 = Ammonium Sulfate; OMC = Organic Matter Carbon; EC = Elemental Carbon; Soil = PM Soil; CM = Coarse Matter.
Source: Appendix B, CA RHP. See each monitor analysis chapter.
As the data in Table 4 show, the three
primary contributors or drivers of haze
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
in California are: Nitrates, organic
carbon, and sulfates. Conversely, the
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monitoring data also show that coarse
mass particulate matter, elemental
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
carbon, and fine soils do not drive
visibility impairment on worst case
days.
1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in
California Class I Areas
According to Appendix B of the
CRHP, light extinction from nitrate is a
key driver of haze at many California
Class I sites, especially in Southern
California and other sites located near
major urban areas and transportation
corridors. (CRHP, Section 4.7.3) This
finding is consistent with the WRAP’s
Particulate Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT) showing that NOX
from mobile sources was the most
significant precursor of nitrate pollution
at these Class I areas. The CRHP states,
‘‘The gradient of least to most influence
in light extinction corresponds directly
to the amount of mobile source NOX
emissions nearby.’’ (CRHP, page 7–3, see
also sub-regional discussions in CRHP,
Section 4.7)
Appendix B of the CRHP also shows
that organic carbon is the significant
cause of worst day haze, in all of the
state but Southern California. The
WRAP source apportionment analysis,
which formed the basis for the analysis
in the CRHP, suggests that wildfires,
biogenics (natural plant, animal, and
soil organism emissions), and area
sources are the primary contributors to
organic carbon constituting from 25
percent to 90 percent on worst visibility
days. Biogenic emissions peak during
the dry wildfire season, and contribute
the most natural organic carbon,
annually. Much of the directly emitted
organic carbon in California comes from
wildfires. Also, source apportionment
modeling found that the majority of
secondary organic carbon is derived
from biogenic emission sources. A
review of the PSAT analysis indicates
that pollution from wildfires dominates
in Class I areas with more than 50
percent light extinction from organic
carbon.
Using PSAT modeling again, ARB
found sulfates also drive haze at some
Class I areas on some worst days, with
the influence most perceptible along the
coast. PSAT results indicate that
Offshore and non-WRAP region sources
are the largest contributors, accounting
for approximately 50 to 75 percent of
the measured sulfate levels. In-state
anthropogenic sulfate emissions are
estimated to account for 1 percent to 35
percent. (CRHP, Section 6.2.3). There
are very few large SOX sources in
California and low sulfur fuel is already
required for both mobile and stationary
sources. Offshore emissions appear to
contribute both natural marine sulfates
and SOX from marine commercial
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
shipping activities. The Coastal subregion and Southern California
experience larger impacts from offshore
shipping. Class I Areas in Southern
California show slightly higher
contributions from California
anthropogenic sulfate (22 percent to 35
percent) than other Class I Areas,
reflecting the proximity to point sources
such as refineries and port-related
activities.
Coarse mass particulates do not drive
haze on worst days in California.
Occasionally, coarse mass particulates
may contribute to a single worst day at
some of the drier Class I areas in the
Mojave Desert and on the lee side of the
Sierra Nevada. The days with slightly
elevated coarse mass particulates are
almost always associated with
windblown dust events. These winddriven events also cause very slight
elevations in fine soil (PM2.5 fraction of
dust), but this species never drives
worst days.
Elemental carbon is not a driver of
haze on worst days in California.
Despite its strong capability to
extinguish light, emissions are very low
and are not expected to increase through
2018.
Fine soil contributes least to haze
statewide and is not a driver of haze on
worst days. Fine soil is less than 1
percent of the annual contribution to
light extinction at many IMPROVE
monitors on best and worst days, with
the highest annual average worst day
contribution being just over 5 percent at
one isolated IMPROVE monitor (HOOV)
in the rain shadow (drier lee side) of the
Sierra Nevada. On a day-to-day basis,
fluctuations in concentration at the
IMPROVE monitors are associated with
high wind events.
To summarize, ARB found the three
primary drivers of haze in California to
come from the following source
categories: Mobile sources for nitrate,
natural sources for organic carbon, and
off-shore and non-WRAP region sources
for sulfate. These three sources are
likely to retain a large influence on
visibility conditions in the future as
well. Studies show coarse mass
particulate matter, elemental carbon,
and fine soils do not drive visibility
impairment on worst-case days.
Regarding emissions from other
western states and their visibility
effects, given mountains in the east and
north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and
prevailing weather patterns that move
from west to east, emissions from
neighboring states are not expected to
significantly affect visibility in
California’s Class I areas. Smoke,
however, from large wildfires in
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13953
neighboring states, is an exception as it
would be expected to impair visibility.
To conclude, California’s largest
source of controllable visibility
impairing emissions is NOX from mobile
sources (see the 2002 emissions
inventory estimate in Table 2). Results
from California’s source apportionment
analysis show that other anthropogenic
emissions contributing to haze come
from sources that are not within
California’s control. For example,
organic carbon emissions from natural
sources such as wildfires and biogenics,
whether from in-state or out-of-state,
contribute significantly to impaired
visibility at all Class I areas in
California. Also, visibility impairment
from sulfates is caused by international
sources outside the WRAP states, such
as shipping. While California has
programs to reduce in-state organic
carbon and SO2 emissions, the CRHP
indicates that reductions in
anthropogenic sources of NOX,
especially NOX from mobile sources,
will lead to significant visibility
improvements in California Class I
areas.
2. California Contributions to Visibility
Impairment in Class I Areas Outside of
the State
Within the baseline years, California
is estimated to have a very small impact
on visibility impairment in the
following Class I areas in nearby states:
Jarbidge Wilderness Area, Nevada;
Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area and Crater
Lake National Park, Oregon; and,
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area and
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.
The CRHP shows the NOX and SOX
contributions to haze during the
baseline years in these neighboring outof-state Class I areas.17 The measured
contribution of NOX and SOX emissions
to particle light extinction is relatively
small in these Class I areas, as is the
estimated contribution of California
NOX and SOX sources within these
measurements. When combined, these
2002 estimates of California’s
contribution to visibility impairment in
out-of-state Class I areas suggest that
California emissions are responsible for
only a very small part of existing
visibility impairment at out-of-state
Class I areas. These base year estimates,
however, do not reflect future
reductions in California’s emissions
inventory through 2018.
To conclude, the state has provided
an emissions inventory of natural and
17 See Table 8.1 Nitrate Contribution to Haze in
Baseline Years, page 8–3 and Table 8.2, Sulfate
Contribution to Haze In Baseline Years, page 8–4,
CRHP.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13954
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
anthropogenic sources that contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas.
California estimated stationary, area,
and mobile sources emissions for the
required base year, 2002, and for 2018.
Also, with the WRAP, the state did
source apportionment analyses of
visibility impairment to determine the
relative contributions of haze causing
pollutants in Class I areas, both inside
and outside of California. We found
these analyses to be valid and
technically correct. (See WRAP TSD.)
Consequently, we propose to find that
the state has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) and (d)(4)(v).
E. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Evaluation
California is required to evaluate the
use of best available retrofit technology
(BART) controls at 26 types of major
stationary sources 18 built between 1962
and 1977 that have the potential to emit
250 tons or more of any pollutant and
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any Class I area. CAA
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) and 40 CFR
51.308(e). The state must submit a list
of all BART-eligible sources within the
state, and a determination of BART
controls, including emission limitations
and schedules for compliance, for those
sources subject to BART. Each source
subject to BART is required to install
and operate BART, as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after EPA approval of the statewide
regional haze SIP revision. CAA Section
169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART
The first phase of a BART evaluation
is to identify all the BART-eligible
sources within a state’s boundaries.
BART eligible sources are those sources
which have the potential to emit 250
tons per year or more of a visibility-
impairing air pollutant, were put in
place between August 7, 1962 and
August 7, 1977 and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
40 CFR 51.301. California assumed that
any source meeting the emission criteria
which fell into the 26 listed source
categories was BART-eligible unless
there was adequate documentation to
verify that the source was not put into
place during the time period defined in
the RHR. This analysis yielded a list of
28 sources, found in Table 5–2 of the
plan.19 Three of the sources identified
in this table were determined to have
shut down: The BART-eligible units at
the TXI Cement plant in Oro Grande; 20
the Spreckels Sugar plant in Mendota; 21
and, the Mirant electric generating
station in San Francisco.22 These
sources have shutdown and/or
decommissioned their BART eligible
sources and so were eliminated from
further review by ARB.23
2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility
Impairment
The second phase of the BART
determination process is to identify
those BART-eligible sources that may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at
any Class I area and are, therefore,
subject to BART. As explained above,
EPA has issued guidelines that provide
states with guidance for addressing the
BART requirements. 40 CFR Part 51
Appendix Y; see also, 70 FR 39104 (July
6, 2005). The BART Guidelines describe
how states may consider exempting
some BART-eligible sources from
further BART review based on
dispersion modeling showing that the
sources contribute below a certain
threshold amount. Generally, states may
not establish a contribution threshold
that exceeds 0.5 deciview impact. 70 FR
39161 (July 6, 2005).
California established a threshold of
0.5 deciview. With this threshold, any
source with an impact of greater than
0.5 deciview in any Class I area would
be subject to a BART analysis and, if
appropriate, BART emissions
limitations.
California did not provide an
explanation for selecting the 0.5
deciview threshold for determining
whether a BART source may be
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Based on EPA’s review
of the BART-eligible sources in
California, however, EPA is proposing
to find that a 0.5 dv threshold is
appropriate, given the specific facts in
California.
EPA’s BART Guidelines recommend
that states ‘‘consider the number of
BART sources affecting the Class I areas
at issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources’ impacts.’’ 70 FR
39104, 39161. The BART Guidelines
also state, ‘‘In general, a larger number
of BART sources causing impacts in a
Class I area may warrant a lower
contribution threshold.’’ Id. An email
from Christine M. Suarez-Murias,
California Air Resources Board to Greg
Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011
(Suarez-Murias email) included an
attachment with details about the Class
I areas nearest to BART sources for
those BART sources that either showed
an impact less than 0.5 deciview, or
were consistent with EPA’s model plant
analysis. Modeling for the sources in the
Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM) program in the South Coast
Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) showed that their collective
impact would be well below the 0.5
deciview threshold, therefore further
documentation regarding the Class I
areas is not necessary. Table 5 shows
these details from the Suarez-Murias email.
TABLE 5—CLASS I AREAS IMPACTED BY BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES BELOW THE 0.5 DECIVIEW (dv) THRESHOLD
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Source
Model
result
Searles Industrial .................................................................................................
Big West Refineries .............................................................................................
Chevron Richmond Refinery ................................................................................
Conoco Phillips Refinery Rodeo ..........................................................................
Tesoro Refinery Martinez .....................................................................................
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (Martinez) ..................................................................
Shell Refinery Martinez ........................................................................................
Valero Refinery Benicia .......................................................................................
0.208 dv ........
Model plant ...
0.393 dv ........
0.366 dv ........
0.069 dv ........
0.092 dv ........
0.169 dv ........
0.291 dv ........
18 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’
potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
19 The final version of this table may be found in
the technical supplement to the SIP submitted on
June 9, 2010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:30 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
20 June 2010 supplement, August 4, 2009 letter
from Alan J. De Salvio, Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District to Karen Magliano, California
Air Resources Board with attachment.
21 Ibid.
22 See California Energy Commission San
Francisco Electric Reliability Project Power Plant
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Emission
rate [tpy]
Distance
[km]
*∼1900
313
*∼1900
*∼2200
*∼500
∼700
*∼1100
*∼7700
70
80
30
40
50
50
50
50
Nearest class I area
Dome Lands WA.
Dome Lands WA.
Pt. Reyes NS.
Pt. Reyes NS.
Pt. Reyes NS.
Pt. Reyes NS.
Pt. Reyes NS.
Pt. Reyes NS.
Licensing Case Docket Number 04–AFC–1. (https://
www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/sanfrancisco/
index.html)
23 See Revised Table 5–2 (March 2010 version) in
attachments to June 2010 supplement.
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13955
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—CLASS I AREAS IMPACTED BY BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES BELOW THE 0.5 DECIVIEW (DV) THRESHOLD—
Continued
Source
Model
result
Mirant Pittsburg ....................................................................................................
Mirant Antioch ......................................................................................................
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant Ventura .....................................................................
So Cal Gas ...........................................................................................................
Coolwater Reliant Dagget ....................................................................................
Reliant ..................................................................................................................
JR Simplot Lathrop ..............................................................................................
Model plant ...
Model plant ...
Model plant ...
Model plant ...
0.489 dv ........
Model plant ...
Model plant ...
Emission
rate [tpy]
Distance
[km]
559
277
314
212
*∼3100
659
600
Nearest class I area
74
79
48
52
70
70
101
Pt. Reyes NS.
Pt. Reyes NS.
San Gabriel WA.
San Gabriel WA.
San Gorgonio WA.
San Rafael WA.
Yosemite NP.
* Annual emissions of NOX and SO2 estimated by rounding up from 24-hr max emissions used in modeling, multiplied by 365 days.
Table 5 shows that there are three
Class I areas affected by multiple BARTeligible sources that California has
determined are not subject to BART:
Dome Lands WA, San Gabriel WA, and
Point Reyes NS. The Dome Lands WA
is impacted by two BART-eligible
sources. The Searles Industrial source
was modeled to have a 0.208 deciview
effect, which is well below the 0.5
deciview threshold. The Big West
Refineries plant is well within the
parameters of the EPA model plant.
Furthermore, since it has a lower
emission rate than Searles Industrial
and is further from the Dome Lands
Class I area, it is reasonable to assume
that Big West Refineries maximum
contribution to visibility impairment is
also well below the 0.5 deciview
threshold. The San Gabriel WA is also
affected by two BART-eligible sources.
Each source is well below the EPA
model plant parameters and both are
unlikely to have a significant effect on
visibility at that Class I area.
The Point Reyes NS is affected by
several BART-eligible sources that
California has determined are not
subject to BART. California’s analysis,
however, supports its claim that these
sources are not causing visibility
impairment at Point Reyes NS.
Appendix B to the CRHP shows that
visibility impairment on the worst 20
percent of days at Point Reyes NS is
caused primarily by nitrate (39.59%),
sea salt (21.86%) and sulfate (14.54%).
(CRHP, page B–105) Sea salt is clearly
non-anthropogenic. According to the
WRAP source apportionment study
relied upon for the CRHP, nitrate
extinction on the worst 20 percent of
days is overwhelmingly from mobile
sources of NOX, not stationary sources.
(CRHP, page B–108) The sulfate on the
worst 20 percent of days at Point Reyes
NS is primarily from SO2 emitted from
offshore sources and wildfires in Oregon
during the 2000–2004 base year period,
and the base year period contribution
from California stationary sources is
relatively small. Moreover, the
stationary source contribution occurred
during the baseline period, which was
before the Valero Refinery in Benicia
was required to achieve significant SO2
reductions as a result of an EPAnegotiated consent decree. (CRHP, Page
5–24) In conclusion, based on the
factors discussed above, the EPA finds
the 0.5 deciview threshold to be
appropriate for California.
The BART Guidelines allow using
model plants to determine which BART
eligible sources are not reasonably
expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment. That is, one can
evaluate the visibility impacts of an
example facility and apply those results
to similar facilities. Based on EPA’s
model plant analysis, we believe that a
state that has established 0.5 deciview
as a contribution threshold could
reasonably exempt from the BART
review process sources that emit less
than 500 tons per year of NOX or SO2
(or combined NOX and SO2), as long as
these sources are located more than 50
kilometers from any Class I area; and
sources that emit less than 1000 tons per
year of NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX
and SO2) that are located more than 100
kilometers from any Class I area. If a
state has BART eligible sources that fall
within these parameters, then it is
reasonable to assume that these sources
do not cause or contribute to visibility
impairment at Class I areas; therefore,
they are not subject to BART controls.
California evaluated its remaining
BART eligible sources and determined
that only three sources were subject to
BART. The other sources demonstrated
that, considering their emissions and
distance to the nearest Class I area, they
were not causing or contributing to
visibility impairment at Class I areas.
The results of this analysis are shown in
Table 6.
TABLE 6—RESULTS OF SUBJECT TO BART ANALYSIS IN CALIFORNIA
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
BART eligible source
Analysis results deciview (dv)
Tesoro Refinery Martinez .....................................................................................................................................
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant Martinez .....................................................................................................................
Shell Refinery Martinez ........................................................................................................................................
Searles Industrial ..................................................................................................................................................
Valero Refinery Benicia ........................................................................................................................................
Conoco Phillips Refinery Rodeo ...........................................................................................................................
Chevron Richmond Refinery ................................................................................................................................
Coolwater Reliant Dagget .....................................................................................................................................
BP Refinery (Carson) ...........................................................................................................................................
California Portland Cement ..................................................................................................................................
Chevron Refinery (El Segundo) ...........................................................................................................................
Conoco Refinery (Carson) ....................................................................................................................................
Conoco Refinery (Wilmington) ..............................................................................................................................
Exxon Refinery (Torrance) ...................................................................................................................................
Tesoro Refinery (Wilmington) ...............................................................................................................................
Ultramar Refinery ..................................................................................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
0.069 dv.
0.092 dv.
0.169 dv.
0.208 dv.
0.291 dv.
0.366 dv.
0.393 dv.
0.489 dv.
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
SCAQMD
15MRP1
modeling
modeling
modeling
modeling
modeling
modeling
modeling
modeling
<0.244
<0.244
<0.244
<0.244
<0.244
<0.244
<0.244
<0.244
dv.
dv.
dv.
dv.
dv.
dv.
dv.
dv.
13956
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—RESULTS OF SUBJECT TO BART ANALYSIS IN CALIFORNIA—Continued
BART eligible source
Analysis results deciview (dv)
Big West Refineries ..............................................................................................................................................
JR Simplot Lathrop ...............................................................................................................................................
Mirant Power Plant (Antioch) ................................................................................................................................
Mirant Power Plant (Pittsburg) .............................................................................................................................
Reliant Ventura County ........................................................................................................................................
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (South Coast) ............................................................................................................
So Cal Gas ...........................................................................................................................................................
Cabrillo Encina Plant ............................................................................................................................................
Duke Energy South Bay .......................................................................................................................................
Dynegy Moss Landing ..........................................................................................................................................
Comparable to EPA
Comparable to EPA
Comparable to EPA
Comparable to EPA
Comparable to EPA
Comparable to EPA
Comparable to EPA
Subject to BART.
Subject to BART.
Subject to BART.
model
model
model
model
model
model
model
plant.
plant.
plant.
plant.
plant.
plant.
plant.
Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011.
The air control districts with
authority over these sources modeled
the visibility impacts of the first eight
sources on Table 5 using CalPUFF
(Tesoro Refinery Martinez through
Coolwater Reliant Dagget). These
sources were modeled individually and
the results indicated that they do not
cause or contribute to visibility
impairment at Class I areas. The next
nine sources were modeled collectively
by the SCAQMD. All of these sources
are part of the RECLAIM emissions cap
and trade system in the SCAQMD. The
SCAQMD modeled all of the sources in
RECLAIM (including these nine
sources) and demonstrated that the
entire universe of sources in RECLAIM
has an aggregate impact of less than a
0.244 deciview on Class I areas.
Therefore, each individual source must
have a less than 0.244 deciview impact
on visibility at Class I areas, meaning
none of them cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at these protected
areas. The EPA evaluated the modeling
analyses conducted by all the districts
and found them to be valid and
technically correct.24 (See BART TSD.)
The next seven sources used the EPA
model plant analysis described
previously in this section. The details
on these sources are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 7—CALIFORNIA BART SOURCES MEETING THE EPA MODEL PLANT REQUIREMENTS
Emissions
(tons per
year)
Source
Big West Refineries .........................................................................................................................
JR Simplot Lathrop ..........................................................................................................................
Mirant Power Plant Antioch .............................................................................................................
Mirant Power Plant Pittsburg ...........................................................................................................
Reliant Ventura County ....................................................................................................................
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (South Coast) .......................................................................................
So Cal Gas ......................................................................................................................................
313
600
277
559
659
314
212
Distance
(kilometers)
80
101
79
74
70
48
52
Class I area
affected
Domelands WA.
Yosemite NP.
Pt. Reyes NS.
Pt. Reyes NS.
San Rafael WA.
San Gabriel WA.
San Gabriel WA.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011.
EPA’s model plant analysis indicated
that a source emitting less than 500 tons
per year (tpy) of combined NOX and
SOX would not contribute to visibility
impairment if it were located more than
50 kilometers from the nearest Class I
area. Four of the sources in Table 6 emit
less than 500 tpy and three of them are
more than 50 kilometers away from the
nearest Class I area. The Rhodia Sulfuric
Acid Plant is 48 kilometers from the San
Gabriel Wilderness Area. However,
since its emission rate is well below 500
tons per year, this source is also
consistent with the model plant
analysis. The EPA model plant analysis
also indicated that sources that emit less
than 1000 tons per year do not
contribute to visibility impairment if
they are located more than 100
kilometers away from the nearest Class
I area. Three of the sources in Table 6
3. Sources Already Controlled to BART
The remaining BART eligible sources,
Cabrillo Encina Plant, Duke Energy
(South Bay), and Dynegy Moss Landing
are subject to BART. These plants are all
natural gas burning electric generating
units. Since these sources burn natural
gas, their SOX emissions are not
significant with respect to visibility.
NOX emissions are the primary concern,
considering visibility impairment. Each
of these sources already control NOX
emissions with selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) technology. This
technology is recognized as the Best
Available Control Technology for
natural gas burning electric generating
units and is required on most new
sources of this type. As such, SCR
represents BART for these sources.
To conclude, California evaluated the
required universe of sources for
applicability of BART controls using the
criteria in the RHR and the BART
Guidance. The state found that three
sources were eligible for the application
of BART controls: Cabrillo Encina Plant,
Duke Energy (South Bay), and Dynegy
Moss Landing. After a review of the
control technologies in use at these
BART eligible plants, California found
that BART level controls were already
24 For our detailed review and discussion, please
see ‘‘Technical Support Document for USEPA’s
Review of the California Regional Haze Plan’s
Modeling for the Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) Evaluation’’, Prepared by USEPA Region 9,
March 4, 2011 (BART TSD).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
exceed 500 tpy but emit less than 1000
tpy. The JR Simplot Lathrop source is
over 100 kilometers from the nearest
Class I area and so is consistent with the
model plant. The Mirant Power Plant in
Pittsburg and the Reliant Plant in
Ventura County are somewhat less than
100 kilometers from their respective
Class I areas; however, their emissions
are significantly less than 1000 tpy. For
these reasons, we propose to find that
these are also consistent with the EPA
model plant analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13957
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
in place at the sources with a potential
to impair visibility at Class I areas. We
propose to find that California has
conducted a BART evaluation
consistent with the requirement in 40
CFR 51.308(e).
F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the
Reasonable Progress Goals
The RHR requires states to establish a
goal, expressed in deciviews, for each
Class I area within the state that
provides for reasonable progress toward
achieving natural visibility conditions
by 2064. The RPG must improve
visibility for the most impaired days,
and ensure no degradation in visibility
for the least impaired days over the
period of the SIP.
The RPGs for the CRHP show
visibility improvement by 2018 for both
‘‘worst 20 percent of days’’ and ‘‘best 20
percent of days’’ in all Class I areas
when compared to the baseline ‘‘worst’’
and ‘‘best’’ days. See Table 8.
TABLE 8—BASELINE VERSUS 2018 VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS
[Grouped by respective IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews]
2000–04
Baseline worst
haze days
2018 Estimated worst
haze days
(RPG)
2018 URP
estimate
2000–04
Baseline best
haze days
2018 Estimated best
haze days
(A)
Class I area (NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area,
NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly Middle Eel WA (TRIN
monitor) ............................................................................
Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ............
Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA ...
(LAVO monitor) ....................................................................
Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) .................
Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ...............................................
Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ......................
Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS monitor) ...................................................................................
Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ................
Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ......................................
Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ............................................
Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ........................................
Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) .......................
San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) ..........................................
San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ............
San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ........
Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ............................................
Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ........................................
17.4
15.1
16.4
14.4
15.2
13.4
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.0
14.2
12.6
12.9
17.6
13.3
12.3
12.5
16.7
12.6
11.1
11.7
15.3
2.7
2.5
1.4
3.4
2.5
2.5
1.3
3.2
15.5
25.4
19.4
18.5
22.8
18.5
18.8
19.9
22.2
23.5
19.6
14.9
22.7
18.1
17.8
21.3
16.7
17.3
17.4
19.9
21.6
17.9
13.6
21.2
16.6
17.4
21.2
16.0
16.2
16.9
18.7
19.8
16.7
2.3
8.8
5.1
6.1
10.5
8.9
6.4
4.1
5.4
9.6
6.1
2.1
8.1
4.7
5.8
10.1
8.1
5.8
4.8
5.0
8.9
5.7
Sources: Table 6–1, page 6–10; and Table 7–2, page 7–10, CRHP.
Also, as required by the RHR,
California estimated the time each Class
I area would take to reach natural
conditions under the RPG rate of
visibility improvement (see Table 1,
column E). While some of the time
estimates are close to the 2064 natural
conditions goal, none of the estimates
show that natural conditions will be
achieved by 2064 in California’s Class I
areas.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress
Goals
Because California’s RPG estimates
provide for a rate of improvement in
visibility slower than the rate needed to
show attainment of natural conditions
by 2064, the RHR requires the state to
demonstrate why its RPGs are
reasonable and why a rate of progress
leading to attainment by 2064 is not
reasonable.25 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
25 The RHR also requires that the state provide to
the public an assessment of the number of years it
will take to reach natural visibility conditions. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). California’s estimates were
noticed to the public during the public review and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
The RHR specifies that RPGs, as well as
the demonstration of the reasonableness
of attainment beyond 2064, are to be
evaluated through the use of four
factors: Costs of compliance; time
necessary for compliance; energy and,
non-air quality environmental impacts
of compliance; and remaining useful life
of any potentially affected sources. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A); 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
As explained below, we believe the
CRHP demonstrates these four factors
and that the RPGs in the plan are
reasonable.
California’s RPGs are projected
visibility levels based on atmospheric
modeling performed by the WRAP. The
WRAP modeling was based, in part, on
California’s 2018 emissions projections
derived from the emissions reductions
described in California’s 2018 Progress
Strategy. California’s 2018 Progress
Strategy is based on the identification of
the major drivers of haze on worst days,
as well as the sources of these pollutants
comment process prior to ARB’s adoption of the
CRHP.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and their precursors. In particular, the
2018 Progress Strategy predicts
significant reductions in the nitrate
component of haze from NOX emission
reductions achieved by California’s
mobile source control programs.
Weighted emissions, or back trajectory
analyses, along with predictive
modeling show that substantial
reductions in nitrate, roughly 50 percent
at every Class I area, can be achieved
through mobile source NOX emission
reductions in the 2018 Progress
Strategy. (CRHP, page 7–3)
The analysis of the sources of haze
from section 4.7 of CRHP shows that the
primary anthropogenic source of haze
within California is NOX emissions.
Therefore, the largest impact California
can make to improve visibility is by
reducing anthropogenic sources of the
NOX emissions that lead to the
formation of nitrates, especially, NOX
from mobile sources. According to
ARB’s 2018 emissions inventory,
California will have reduced NOX
emissions by 47 percent compared to
2002, with the majority of those
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13958
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emission reductions coming from
mobile sources. The 2018 emissions
inventory also shows that reductions in
mobile source SOX emissions will offset
increases in other source categories.
(See Table 2) In addition, the 2018
emissions inventory predicts reductions
in organic carbon PM and mobile source
elemental carbon PM emissions.
TABLE 9—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FROM 2002 TO 2018
2002 Anthropogenic emissions
inventory
(tpy)
Pollutant
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX ............................................................................................................................
SO2 ............................................................................................................................
VOC ...........................................................................................................................
NH3 ............................................................................................................................
PM Coarse .................................................................................................................
Fine PM OC ...............................................................................................................
Fine PM EC ...............................................................................................................
Other PM Fine ...........................................................................................................
California also evaluated all source
categories that could reasonably be
expected to contribute to visibility
impairment at Class I areas.26 This
analysis considered, for each sub-region,
the species contributing to haze and the
source categories responsible for
anthropogenic emissions of precursors
to those species. For example, in the
Sierra Nevada mountain range, nitrate
pollution accounts for 17 percent of
light extinction on the most impaired
days of the baseline period. Because
nitrate is the predominant
anthropogenic pollutant in this area and
most of the emissions are from within
the state, California examined the
anthropogenic sources of NOX in that
area. A PSAT analysis indicated that 76
percent of those emissions were from
mobile sources. California also
considered SO2 emissions, which
comprise 14 percent of light extinction
on the most impaired days; 45 percent
of these emissions were shown by PSAT
to be from outside the modeling domain
while 22 percent were from within
California. California examined these
sources and demonstrated that they
were already reasonably controlled.
(CRHP, Chapter 4, Section 4.7)
In addition, through the state’s efforts
to attain and maintain the Federal and
State health-based air quality standards,
the state asserts that every reasonable
measure is included in the state’s 2018
Progress Strategy underlying the RPGs
for Class I areas.
EPA also notes that there is a degree
of uncertainty, due to wildfires and
biogenic emissions, in the values
representing baseline and natural
conditions.
Furthermore, as explained in the
EPA’s RPG Guidance, the 2018 URP
estimate is not a presumptive target, and
26 Please see CRHP Chapter 4, Section 4.7,
Regional Analysis of Source Categories.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
1,127,359
62,954
908,151
225,157
279,149
64,492
28,397
67,667
RPGs may be greater, lesser, or
equivalent to the glide path. The glide
path to 2064 represents a rate of
progress which states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of
progress they expect to achieve. Given
the strenuous efforts needed in
California to achieve the emission
reductions described in Tables 2 and 9,
the resulting 2018 RPGs, and the
constraints and uncertainties described
above, we believe it would be
unreasonable to require the CRHP to
meet the 2018 URP estimates.
Consequently, we propose to find that
the state has demonstrated that its 2018
RPGs are reasonable and consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
and 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
2. Interstate Consultation
The CRHP, along with its RPGs, is the
result of California’s continuous
consultation with thirteen other western
states through regular meetings of the
WRAP Working Groups and Forums, via
conference calls, face-to-face meetings,
and workshops over the timeframe of
several years. Through the WRAP
consultative process, California resolved
technical tasks and policy decisions
related to monitoring, emissions, fire
tracking, application of BART, source
attribution, modeling, and control
measure issues. Emissions from other
western US states are not expected to
affect California significantly, except for
smoke from large wildfires.
Furthermore, there were no comments
on the CRHP from neighboring states
regarding the plan’s baseline visibility
estimates, 2018 visibility projections,
RPGs, or 2018 Progress Strategy.
G. Long-Term Strategy
The RHR requires California to submit
a long-term strategy addressing regional
haze visibility impairment for the Class
I areas affected by the emissions from
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2018 Anthropogenic emissions
inventory
(tpy)
592,688
63,566
882,313
223,916
311,518
56,307
18,927
69,262
Percentage
change
¥47
1
¥3
¥1
12
¥13
¥33
2
the state. California’s 2018 Progress
Strategy reflects the measures that were
included in the 2002 and 2018 emission
inventories and WRAP analyses that
produced California’s reasonable
progress goals. The RHR requires that a
state’s strategy consider emission
reductions from on-going control
programs, construction activity
mitigation, source retirement and
replacement, and smoke management
techniques. Due to California’s severe
air quality problems, the state has
emissions control programs that address
these RHR considerations.
California’s 2018 Progress Strategy
(Chapter 4 of the CRHP) includes
Federal, State and local control
measures. As reflected in the 2018
emissions inventory, these control
measures address the main
anthropogenic constituents of
California’s visibility problem: NOX,
SOX, and directly emitted particulate
matter emissions. As the RPGs in Table
8 suggest, the measures in the 2018
Progress Strategy will improve visibility
in all California Class I areas. Also,
implementation of the 2018 Progress
Strategy is expected to minimize
California’s existing very small
contribution to visibility impairment in
downwind states. The CRHP describes
ongoing state and local emission control
measures, as summarized below.
1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control
Programs
Air pollution control programs in
California are divided among the state,
multi-county air districts, and county
level air quality control agencies.
Among state agencies, ARB is
responsible for regulating mobile
sources emissions (except where
preempted by Federal law) and
consumer products, developing fuel
specifications, establishing gasoline
vapor recovery standards and certifying
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
vapor recovery systems. Local air
districts have primary responsibility for
regulating stationary and area wide
sources.
improvement as related rules adopted
during the 2000–2004 baseline period
continue their implementation. (CRHP,
page 7–4)
a. Mobile Source Programs
California’s regulation of mobile
source emissions covers new vehicle
emissions standards, low polluting fuel
formulations, and off-road sources such
as lawn and garden equipment,
recreational vehicles and boats, and
construction equipment. With the
implementation of the 2018 Control
Strategy, the state predicts that
reductions from mobile sources will
occur as the result of several regulatory
efforts.
For example, according to the CRHP,
California’s 2008 low-emission vehicle
standards and reformulated gasoline
reduced VOC emissions to less than 50
pounds per 100,000 miles traveled, and
predicted reductions for the 2010 model
year to be approximately 10 pounds per
100,000 miles. California also points out
that mobile source organic carbon
emissions are reduced beyond what is
required under national regulations.
(CRHP, page 4–2 to 4–3)
ARB’s efforts with EPA to regulate
large diesel, gasoline and liquid
petroleum gas equipment will result in
new large off-road equipment that will
be 98 percent cleaner. These regulations
will reduce both NOX and elemental
carbon emissions. (CRHP, page 4–4)
In addition, ARB has worked with
EPA to reduce emissions from goods
movement sources. For example, the
CRHP estimates that low-sulfur fuel
requirements will reduce SOX emissions
from ship auxiliary engines by 96
percent and new locomotive engines by
50–60 percent. (CRHP, Table 4–1 and
discussion, page 4–4)
ARB plans to reduce emissions from
smaller engines, such as lawn and
garden equipment, recreational vehicles,
and boats, achieving 82–90 percent
fewer NOX emissions than uncontrolled
units. (CRHP, Table 4–1, and
discussion, page 4–4)
The CRHP describes California’s
efforts to reduce diesel PM emissions
since 2000, when California began
implementing its Diesel Risk Reduction
Plan, aimed at reducing diesel PM
emissions by 85 percent by 2020.
Through engine retrofits and
replacements, ARB predicts these
control measures will reduce NOX
emissions as well as diesel PM
emissions. (CHRP, Section 4.2.3, page
4–6) The CRHP states that this program
has already provided visibility benefits
as shown by elemental carbon trends at
IMPROVE monitors. In 2013 and 2018,
the state predicts more visibility
b. Stationary and Area Source
Regulations by Local Air Agencies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
California’s thirty-five local air
districts and air quality control agencies
are primarily responsible for regulating
emissions from stationary and area-wide
sources through rules and permitting
programs. For example, air district
regulated sources include industrial
sources like factories, refineries, and
power plants; commercial sources like
gas stations, dry cleaners, and paint
spray booth operations; residential
sources like fireplaces, water heaters,
and house paints; and miscellaneous
non-mobile sources like emergency
generators. Air districts also inspect and
test fuel vapor recovery systems to
check that such systems are operating as
certified.27
2. Construction Activities
Many air districts have adopted
stringent rules to control fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities.
These rules include the following
examples: San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)
Regulation 8—Fugitive PM–10
Prohibitions, adopted in 2004 (71 FR
8461, (February 17, 2006)); and,
SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust (73
FR 12639, (March 10, 2008)).
In July 2007, ARB adopted a
regulation designed to reduce diesel and
NOX emissions from the state’s
estimated 180,000 off-road vehicles
used in construction, mining, airport
ground support and other industries.
These regulations were not adopted in
time to be considered by the WRAP and
the state when producing the RPGs;
however, ARB estimates that by 2020
‘‘particulate matter will be reduced by
74 percent and NOX will be reduced by
32 percent compared to current levels.’’
(CRHP, page 4–11)
3. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
ARB reports that older and high
polluting sources produce the majority
of mobile source emissions; as a result,
California has directed its source
retirement strategy towards mobile
sources. California has pursued the
27 For a complete listing of local California air
district rules within the federally enforceable SIP,
please see our online database at https://
www.epa.gov/region9/air/sips/. This
database is organized first by state and then local
agency. The rules are listed by number, title,
adoption date, and the date the rule was approved
into the SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13959
retirement of engines using incentive
funding programs together with in-use
regulations. For example, using the Carl
Moyer Program, the state has invested
up to $170 million annually to clean up
as many as 7,500 older, higher-emitting
engines, thereby reducing NOX
emissions by as much as 24 tons per
day. (CRHP, pages 4–11 to 4–12)
4. Smoke Management Programs
California’s ‘‘Smoke Management
Guidelines for Agricultural and
Prescribed Burning (SMG)’’ is the basis
for the state’s Smoke Management
Program. Together, the ARB and the
local air pollution control districts
implement the SMG. ARB oversees the
program and makes daily burn/no burn
day decisions for each of the air basins
in the state. In turn, air districts have
adopted comprehensive smoke
management programs and regulations
to implement and enforce the SMG.
These smoke management programs
contain requirements for agricultural
and prescribed burns permits; daily
burn authorizations; annual reporting;
registration and smoke management
plans for prescribed burns.28 According
to the CRHP, smoke management plans
must specifically consider Class I Areas
as sensitive receptors. (CRHP, pages 4–
12 and 4–13)
5. Enforceability of Measures in the
Long-Term Strategy
The RHR requires that the state’s longterm strategy include enforceable
measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals at every Class
I area (inside and outside the state)
affected by emissions from that state. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3). California’s RPGs are
based on the region-wide inventory
developed by the WRAP states that
included data for California sources.
The emissions inventory from California
was based on rules adopted through
2004. (CRHP, page 3–1)
Table 2 of this notice shows changes
in emissions by pollutant and source
category between 2002 and 2018. The
pollutants of concern for visibility
impairment are NOX, SO2, and VOC (as
organic carbon precursor). A review of
Table 2 indicates that moderate
increases of SO2 and VOC from
28 Examples of local air district rules
implementing the SMG are as follows: Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District Rule
501—Agricultural Burning (49 FR 47490 (December
5, 1984)); adopted in 1992 and amended since,
SJVAPCD Rule 4103—Open Burning (74 FR 57907
(November 10, 2009)); SJVAPCD Rule 4106—
Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction (67 FR
8894 (February 27, 2002)); and, Northern Sierra Air
Quality Management District Regulation 3—Open
Burning (62 FR 48480 (September 16, 1997) and 64
FR 45170 (August 19, 1999)).
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
13960
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
stationary and area sources are offset by
significant reductions in emissions from
mobile sources. Table 2 also shows that
the reductions in NOX statewide are
attributable to a decrease in emissions
from mobile sources of over 530,000
tons per year. Therefore, the
enforceability of mobile source
measures is a critical consideration
when evaluating the measures necessary
to achieve the reasonable progress goals.
California’s mobile source measures
fall within two categories: Measures for
which the state has obtained or has
applied to obtain a waiver of federal
pre-emption under CAA section 209
(section 209 waiver measure or waiver
measure) and those for which the state
is not required to obtain a waiver (nonwaiver measures).
EPA’s position on the creditability of
California’s mobile source control
measures in SIP attainment
demonstrations has been addressed in
previous actions. See EPA’s proposed
approval and final approval of the SJV
1–Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933,
33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420,
10424 (March 8, 2010).
EPA recently evaluated California
mobile source measures as part of our
November 10, 2010 proposed action on
the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 plan
and the San Joaquin Valley portions of
the revised 2007 state strategy. See, e.g.,
75 FR 74517 (Nov. 10, 2010). In taking
this action, we described how EPA had
either approved California’s mobile
source rules into the SIP, or granted a
waiver of federal pre-emption under
CAA section 209.
Based on this analysis, EPA proposes
to find that the measures in the CRHP
are sufficient to achieve the reasonable
progress goals, as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3).
To conclude, California has submitted
a long-term strategy addressing visibility
impairment due to regional haze within
Class I areas, both inside and outside of
the state. Through participation in the
WRAP, California consulted with
neighboring states and coordinated its
2018 Progress Strategy, as well as
developed and documented the
technical basis for the 2018 Progress
Strategy. Within the 2018 Progress
Strategy, the state has considered and
addressed measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities,
source retirement and replacement
schedules, and smoke management for
agricultural and forestry practices. The
state has estimated the 2002 base year
and 2018 anthropogenic and natural
source emissions inventory and the
emission reductions resulting from the
2018 Progress Strategy’s control
measures. Consequently, we propose to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
find that California has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
H. Monitoring Strategy
According to the CRHP, California
intends to rely on the IMPROVE
monitoring program to collect and
report data for reasonable progress
tracking for all Class I Areas in the state.
Because the RHR requires a long-term
tracking program over a 60-year
implementation period, the CRHP states
that California expects the configuration
of the monitors, sampling site locations,
laboratory analysis methods and data
quality assurance, and network
operation protocols will not change; or,
if they are changed, any future
IMPROVE program will remain
comparable to the one operating during
the 2000–2004 RHR baseline period.
Through 2018, the CRHP does not
specify any additional monitors beyond
the existing IMPROVE network. Also,
California will continue to meet the
requirement to coordinate its CRHP
monitoring with its monitoring for RAVI
by participating in the IMPROVE
monitoring network. Finally, California
plans to use data reported by the
IMPROVE program as part of the
regional technical support analysis tools
found at the Visibility Information
Exchange Web System (VIEWS), as well
as other analysis tools and efforts
sponsored by the WRAP. (CRHP, page
9–1)
To conclude, California has submitted
a monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing and reporting on regional
haze visibility impairment in the state’s
Class I areas. The state will depend on
the IMPROVE monitoring program to
collect and report data for tracking
reasonable progress, as specified in the
RHR for all Class I areas in the state. The
state will use data reported by the
IMPROVE program and the regional
analysis tools found at the VIEWS.
Consequently, we propose to find that
the state has met the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
I. Federal Land Manager Consultation
and Coordination
The RHR requires states to coordinate
the development and implementation of
their visibility protection programs with
the Federal Land Managers (FLMs). In
particular, states must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation at least
sixty days prior to holding any public
hearing on the SIP. Consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to
discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I areas, and
offer recommendations on the
development of RPGs and strategies to
address visibility impairment. A state
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
must describe in its SIP how it
addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs and include procedures for
continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs on program
implementation. In the future, FLMs
must have the opportunity for
consultation with the state on the
development and review of plan
revisions and five-year progress reports
as well as on the implementation of
other programs that might contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas.
The CRHP states that California has
provided a list of ARB contacts to the
FLMs, as required by the RHR. In
November 2006, ARB sponsored a
‘‘Regional Haze Teach-In,’’ with
participants from several federal
agencies (the U.S. Forest Service, the
National Park Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the EPA), and
interested air districts. ARB staff
presented and discussed the state’s
proposed 2018 Progress Strategy and
RPGs. (CRHP, page 8–5) Subsequently,
an ARB/Federal Land Managers
Regional Haze Steering Committee
(Steering Committee) was formed. The
participants conducted monthly
conferences to review progress on
regional haze planning and to obtain
input from FLMs. California’s RPGs
were also discussed during these calls.
(CRHP, page 8–5)
Prior to the January 22, 2009 ARB
adoption hearing, ARB provided the
FLMs with a draft of the CRHP and
requested comment. ARB also provided
a webcast workshop on December 15,
2008 to allow participation by federal
land management agency field office
staff in remote locations. (CRHP, page
8–6) Appendix F of the CRHP includes
the FLMs’ official comments, along with
responses prepared by ARB.
The CRHP states that California will
continue to coordinate and consult with
the FLMs over the course of the
implementation period. California
intends to use three existing
coordination mechanisms for this
purpose: the Interagency Air and Smoke
Council, the Air and Land Managers
Group, and the WRAP. (CRHP, page
8–7)
To conclude, beginning in November
2006, California provided numerous and
regular opportunities for FLM review of
the CRHP as it was developed. Prior to
ARB adoption of the CRHP on January
22, 2009, ARB provided a 60-day
comment period for FLMs and a formal
public comment period beginning
December 5, 2008, and a videoconferencing forum to solicit FLM
comment on the final draft CRHP. FLM
comments and ARB responses were
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
included with the CRHP in Appendix F.
In the future, the state will consult and
coordinate regional haze activities with
FLMs through three existing venues:
The Interagency Air and Smoke
Council, the Air and Land Managers
Group, and the WRAP. Consequently,
we propose to find that the state has met
the FLM coordination and consultation
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
The CRHP states that California will
perform a mid-course review in 2013 to
assess progress towards reaching the
RPGs. California’s mid-course review
will consider post-2004 control
measures that were not included in the
2018 Progress Strategy. The CRHP states
that the mid-course review will also do
the following: ‘‘Update natural
conditions to reflect new information, if
available; update the RPGs with latest
WRAP modeling, if appropriate; reevaluate the RPGs to determine if they
should be adjusted to better reflect
achievable improvements in visibility,
as future control measures are adopted
and implemented; compare the actual
deciview calculations against progress
towards reaching the RPGs and the
uniform rate of progress; assess the
impact at the monitors from BARTspecific and post-2004 adopted and
implemented measures; and, evaluate
the adequacy of the existing CRHP
elements.’’ (CRHP, Section 9.3, page
9–2)
In 2018, California will revise the
CRHP, following procedures for
coordination with other western states
and FLMs. California intends for the
2018 CRHP revision to include the
following updates: ‘‘Current calculation
methodologies for visibility; evaluation
of the appropriateness of natural
condition levels and updates, if
appropriate; current visibility
conditions for most impaired and least
impaired days; progress towards natural
conditions; effectiveness of California’s
2018 Progress Strategy; affirmation or
revision of reasonable progress goals;
updated emission inventories; and, reevaluation of the monitoring strategy.’’
(CRHP, Section 9.4, pages 9–2 to 9–3)
To conclude, California has submitted
a plan with commitments to provide a
2013 progress report evaluating the
January 22, 2009 CRHP and RPGs, as
well as a 2018 regional haze plan
revision. Consequently, we propose to
find that the state has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) and
(g).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
V. EPA’s Analysis of How California’s
Regional Haze Plan Meets Interstate
Transport Requirements
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIP
revision to contain ‘‘adequate provisions
* * * prohibiting * * * any source or
other types of emission activity within
the State from emitting any air pollutant
in amounts which will * * * interfere
with measures required to be included
in the applicable implementation plan
for any other State * * * to protect
visibility.’’ EPA is proposing to find that
the SIP submitted by California to
address regional haze contains adequate
provisions to meet the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
with respect to visibility.
As an initial matter, EPA notes that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not
specify explicitly how EPA should
ascertain whether a state’s SIP contains
adequate provisions to prevent
emissions from sources in that state
from interfering with measures required
in another state to protect visibility.
Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its
face, and EPA must interpret this
provision.
Our 2006 Guidance recommended
that a state could meet the visibility
prong of the transport requirements for
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submitting
a regional haze SIP, due in December
2007. EPA’s reasoning was that the
development of the regional haze SIPs
was intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states, and that
through this process states would
coordinate on emissions controls to
protect visibility on an interstate basis.
In fact, in developing their respective
reasonable progress goals, WRAP states
consulted with each other through the
WRAP’s work groups. As a result of this
process, the common understanding
was that each state would take action to
achieve the emissions reductions relied
upon by other states in their reasonable
progress demonstrations under the RHR.
This interpretation is consistent with
the RHR requirement that a state
participating in a regional planning
process must include ‘‘all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed
upon through that process.’’ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
As discussed above in sections IV.F
and IV.G of this proposed rule, as a
WRAP member, California developed
the 2018 Progress Strategy in
consultation with 13 other WRAP states
to address regional haze visibility
impairment in Class I areas affected by
California emissions. California also
developed a set of emissions inventories
reflecting the state’s implementation of
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13961
a broad range of emission control
measures included in the 2018 Progress
Strategy. See sections IV.C and IV.G.5
above for a discussion of these
emissions inventories and control
measures. As part of the WRAP’s
regional consultative process, California
provided the WRAP with these
emissions inventories for the WRAP’s
regional 2018 future year modeling. The
WRAP projected visibility levels for all
Class I areas in California and
neighboring states based on California’s
projected 2018 emissions inventories
and the 2018 inventories supplied by
other WRAP states. Each of the WRAP
states then developed its regional haze
plan using these visibility projections.
As a result, California’s 2018 Progress
Strategy and projected emissions
inventories, including the control
measures upon which they rely, were
accounted for in the WRAP’s
apportionment of emission reduction
obligations among the member states.
Each of the WRAP states then developed
their respective reasonable progress
goals based upon an understanding that
California’s implementation of the
emission control measures included in
the 2018 Progress Strategy would
achieve California’s projected 2018
emissions inventory levels. Thus, the
following elements of the CRHP ensure
that emissions from California will not
interfere with the reasonable progress
goals for neighboring states’ Class I
areas: Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory),
chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress
Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation).
We propose to determine that these
elements of the CRHP adequately
address California’s apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed
upon through the WRAP consultative
process and, therefore, satisfy the
requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding measures
required in other states to protect
visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS.
VI. EPA’s Proposed Action
Because EPA believes the California
Regional Haze Plan fulfills all the
relevant requirements of Section 169B
and the Regional Haze Rule, we are
proposing to fully approve the plan as
described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act.
In sum, we are proposing to find that
California has met the following
Regional Haze Rule requirements: The
state has established baseline visibility
conditions and reasonable progress
goals for each of its Class I areas; the
state has developed a long-term strategy
with enforceable measures ensuring
reasonable progress towards meeting the
Reasonable Progress Goals for the first
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
13962
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ten-year planning period, through 2018;
the state has addressed adequately the
application of Best Available Retrofit
Technology to specific stationary
sources; the state has an adequate
regional haze monitoring strategy; the
state has provided for consultation and
coordination with federal land managers
in producing its regional haze plan; and,
provided for the regional haze plan’s
future revisions.
In addition, we are proposing to
approve California’s 2007 Transport SIP
and the following specific elements of
the CRHP as satisfying the CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to
prohibit emissions that will interfere
with measures to protect visibility in
another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: Chapter 3
(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4
(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and,
chapter 8 (Consultation).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. 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, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
• 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 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, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011–6003 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0958–201104; FRL–
9280–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Carolina:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Nonattainment New Source
Review; Fine Particulate Matter and
Nitrogen Oxides as a Precursor to
Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the South Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the State of South Carolina, through
the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SC
DHEC), to EPA on December 2, 2010, for
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
parallel processing. The proposed SIP
revision modifies South Carolina’s New
Source Review (NSR) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) programs. The proposed
revision makes two changes for which
EPA is proposing approval in today’s
rulemaking. First, the revision
incorporates NSR provisions for fine
particulate matter (also known as PM2.5)
as amended in EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule (hereafter referred
to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’) into the
South Carolina SIP. Second, the
proposed revision addresses a PSD
permitting requirement promulgated in
the 1997 8–Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Implementation Rule NSR
Update Phase II (hereafter referred to as
the ‘‘Ozone Implementation NSR Update
or Phase II Rule’’). Both changes in the
proposed SIP revision are necessary to
comply with federal regulations related
to South Carolina’s NSR permitting
program. EPA is proposing approval of
the December 2, 2010, proposed SIP
revision because the Agency has
preliminarily determined that the
revisions are in accordance with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA
regulations regarding NSR permitting.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2010–0958 by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0958,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms.
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010–
0958.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments
E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM
15MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13944-13962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6003]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011--0131, FRL-9280-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and
Interstate Transport Plan; Interference With Visibility Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period through 2018. This revision addresses the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and EPA's rules that
require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas.
In addition, we are proposing to approve certain portions of this
Regional Haze SIP revision and a related SIP revision submitted by
California on November 16, 2007, as meeting the requirements of CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states'
measures to protect visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before April 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2011--0131 by one of the following methods:
1. Federal Rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: Wamsley.Jerry@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Jerry Wamsley).
4. Mail: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office
(Air-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011--0131. Our policy is that EPA will include all comments received
in the public docket without change. EPA may make comments available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be
CBI or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, EPA will include your e-mail
address as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the
EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 9-5:30 PST, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, U.S.E.P.A., Region 9,
Air Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105; via telephone at (415) 947-4111; or via electronic
mail at wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our,'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittals
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
D. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
E. Long Term Strategy
F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
IV. EPA's Analysis of the California Regional Haze Plan
A. Affected Class I Areas in California
B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress
1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate
[[Page 13945]]
C. California Emissions Inventories
D. Sources of Visibility Impairment
1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in California Class I Areas
2. California Contributions to Visibility Impairment in Class I
Areas Outside of the State
E. Best Available Retrofit Technology Evaluation
1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART
2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility Impairment
3. Sources Already Controlled to BART
F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the Reasonable Progress
Goals
1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals
2. Interstate Consultation
G. Long-Term Strategy
1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
a. Mobile Source Programs
b. Stationary and Area Source Regulations by Local Air Agencies
2. Construction Activities
3. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
4. Smoke Management Programs
5. Enforceability of Measures in the Long-Term Strategy
H. Monitoring Strategy
I. Federal Land Manager Consultation and Coordination
J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-year Progress Reports
V. EPA's Analysis of How California's Regional Haze Plan Meets
Interstate Transport Requirements
VI. EPA's Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittals
Today's proposed action concerns two submittals from California.
The first submittal from the state is the California Regional Haze Plan
(CRHP). The second submittal from the state is the 2007 Transport SIP,
submitted as Appendix C to the State Strategy for California's 2007
State Implementation Plan for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Details on both submittals
follow below.
The California Air Resource Board (ARB) submitted the California
Regional Haze Plan (CRHP) to EPA on March 16, 2009.\1\ ARB submitted
additional materials to EPA on September 8, 2009.\2\ After discussion
with EPA staff regarding BART-eligible sources, ARB submitted updated
information about these sources on June 9, 2010.\3\ ARB's March 16,
2009 submittal includes public process documentation for the CRHP and
documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held on January 22,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the following documents: Transmittal letter dated March
16, 2009 from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air
Resources Board, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator
USEPA Region IX; and, State of California, Air Resource Board
Resolution 09-4, dated January 22, 2009, adopting the California
Regional Haze Plan.
\2\ Transmittal letter dated September 8, 2009 from James N.
Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to
Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with
attachments.
\3\ Transmittal letter dated June 9, 2010 from James N.
Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with
attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 16, 2007, ARB submitted the State Strategy for
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan to attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 State Strategy).\4\ Appendix C
of the 2007 State Strategy, as modified by Attachment A,\5\ contains
the ``Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 to satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of California'' (2007 Transport
SIP). The 2007 Transport SIP addresses the Transport SIP requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. ARB's November 16, 2007 submittal includes
public process documentation for the 2007 State Strategy, including the
2007 Transport SIP. In addition, the SIP revision includes
documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held on September 27,
2007 on the proposed 2007 State Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007, from James
N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution
No. 07-28 (September 27, 2007).
\5\ See ``Technical and Clarifying Modifications to April 26,
2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board's Proposed State Strategy for
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised
Draft Appendices A through G,'' included as Attachment A to CARB's
Board Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the portion of today's proposed action related to the 2007
Transport SIP, we are proposing action only with regard to the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement that the SIP must prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in California from emitting
pollutants that will interfere with another state's measures to protect
visibility. EPA intends to act in separate proposals on other portions
of California's 2007 Transport SIP that address the remaining elements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The other elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require
that California emission sources do not (a) contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
in any other State, (b) interfere with maintenance of these
standards by any other State, and (c) interfere with measures
required under Part C of the CAA to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in regard to these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of
sources and activities located across a broad geographic area that emit
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and
absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and
visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause
serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to
environmental impacts, such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international
parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is
100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range
that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.\7\ In most of the
eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is
less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that
would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in the nation's national parks
and wilderness areas.\8\ This section of the
[[Page 13946]]
CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future, and
the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air
pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to
address visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084.
These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA and after consulting with
the Department of the Interior, EPA promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999, the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and to establish a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze
plan revision to the SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia and the Virgin Islands.\9\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to
submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to address effectively the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
coordinated strategies with one another, taking into account the effect
of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), one of five RPOs
nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal, and
local air agencies dealing with air quality in the west. WRAP member
states include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak,
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.
D. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and
for PM2.5. See 62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652. Section
110(a)(1)requires states to submit a plan to address certain
requirements for a new or revised NAAQS within three years after
promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter time as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new plan
submissions must address, as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of certain
emissions.
On April 25, 2005, EPA issued a ``Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs
for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.'' 70 FR 21147. This included a finding that California and other
states had failed to submit SIPs to address interstate transport of
emissions affecting visibility and started a two-year clock for the
promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA, unless the
state made a submission to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such submission. Id.
On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidance on this topic entitled,
``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet
Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (``2006 Guidance'').
As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each state to
have a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect other states
in ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains
four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate
transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting
pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states;
or, (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.
With respect to establishing that emissions from sources in the
state would not interfere with measures in other states to protect
visibility, the 2006 Guidance recommended that states make a submission
indicating that it was premature, at that time, to determine whether
there would be any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for
another state designed to ``protect visibility'' until the submission
and approval of regional haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were required to
be submitted by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later point
in time, however, EPA believes it is now necessary to evaluate such
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from a state to ensure that the
existing SIP, or the SIP as modified by the submission, contains
adequate provisions to prevent interference with the visibility
programs of other states, such as for consistency with the assumptions
for controls relied upon by other states in establishing reasonable
progress goals to address regional haze.
The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the
[[Page 13947]]
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourages states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. Working together through
a regional planning process, states are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these
requirements, we anticipate that regional haze SIPs will contain
measures that will achieve these emissions reductions, and that these
measures will meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
As a result of the regional planning efforts in the west, all
states in the WRAP region contributed information to a Technical
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze,
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The WRAP states
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the western Class I areas. The modeling
done by the WRAP relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in the WRAP,
including reductions from installation of Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) at appropriate sources and other measures to be
adopted as part of the state's long-term strategy for addressing
regional haze. The reasonable progress goals in the draft and final
regional haze SIPs that have now been prepared by states in the west
accordingly are based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby
states that were agreed on through the WRAP process.
California's 2007 Transport SIP refers to EPA's 2006 Guidance and
states that the Regional Haze SIP would address interstate regional
haze impacts. We interpret this to mean that California intended its
Regional Haze Plan to address the interstate visibility requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, our evaluation of the 2007
Transport SIP and whether it meets these CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
visibility requirements relies on our evaluation of relevant
information from California's Regional Haze Plan.
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions.
Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality
measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the
value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview is a
more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than
light extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal
incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most
people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used to express reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal), defining baseline, current and natural conditions,
and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to
natural conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would
no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and, as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each ten-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the
[[Page 13948]]
amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) ten-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting reasonable progress goals (RPGs), states must
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the (approximately) ten-year period of the SIP, and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same
period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and, (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, July
1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators,
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1) (``EPA's Reasonable Progress
Guidance''). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' (URP) or the ``glide
path'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate
of progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress
towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a
rate of progress that states are to use for analytical comparison to
the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each
state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also
consult with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby
states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility
impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \11\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)'' as determined by the
state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX and
PM. EPA has indicated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. An
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described in the RHR as ``BART-eligible sources'', and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining
useful life of the source; and, (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze
SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to
what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the
SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source. States have the flexibility to choose the type of control
measures they will use to meet the requirements of BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a ten-
[[Page 13949]]
to fifteen-year strategy for making reasonable progress, section
51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a long-term
strategy (LTS) in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation
of all control measures a state will use during the implementation
period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS
must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures needed to achieve the reasonable progress goals''
for all Class I areas within and affected by emissions from the state.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
contributing states to develop coordinated emissions management
strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing
state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP, all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for
significant interstate consultation, but additional consultation
between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate
visibility issues (e.g., where two states belong to different RPOs).
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and, (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR requires a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within
the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring
strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e.,
review and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring
strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and,
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every
ten years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and
at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP.
This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to
offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the
development and implementation of strategies to address visibility
impairment. Furthermore, a state must include in its SIP a description
of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP
must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state
and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
[[Page 13950]]
IV. EPA's Analysis of the California Regional Haze Plan
As described in Section I, the California Regional Haze SIP
consists of the CRHP and two supplemental submittals. ARB submitted the
CRHP to EPA on March 16, 2009. ARB submitted additional materials to
EPA on September 8, 2009. ARB submitted updated information about BART-
eligible sources on June 9, 2010.
A. Affected Class I Areas in California
There are twenty-nine affected Class I areas in California.\12\
These Class I areas include the following national parks, national
monuments, and wilderness areas managed by the U.S. National Park
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (USBLM):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Figure 1-2, ``California's Class I Areas and IMPROVE
Monitoring Network, page 1-4, CRHP, for a listing and a map showing
the twenty-nine Class I areas.
1. Redwood National Park;
2. Marble Mountain Wilderness;
3. Lava Beds National Monument;
4. South Warner Wilderness;
5. Thousand Lakes Wilderness;
6. Lassen Volcanic National Park;
7. Caribou Wilderness;
8. Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness (includes land managed by
USBLM);
9. Point Reyes National Seashore;
10. Ventana Wilderness;
11. Pinnacles National Monument;
12. Desolation Wilderness;
13. Mokelumne Wilderness;
14. Emigrant Wilderness;
15. Hoover Wilderness;
16. Yosemite National Park;
17. Ansel Adams Wilderness;
18. Kaiser Wilderness;
19. John Muir Wilderness;
20. Kings Canyon National Park;
21. Sequoia National Park;
22. Dome Lands Wilderness (includes land managed by the USBLM);
23. San Rafael Wilderness;
24. San Gabriel Wilderness;
25. Cucamonga Wilderness;
26. San Gorgonio Wilderness;
27. San Jacinto Wilderness;
28. Agua Tibia Wilderness; and,
29. Joshua Tree National Park.
As part of its analysis, ARB apportioned the state's twenty-nine
Class I areas into the following four sub-regions: Northern California;
Sierra California; Coastal California; and, Southern California. Within
each sub-region, the Class I areas are assigned to a specific
representative IMPROVE monitor. For example, within the Northern
California sub-region, Class I areas are assigned as follows: The
Marble Mountain Wilderness and the Yolla-Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness
are assigned to the Trinity IMPROVE monitor; the Lava Beds National
Monument and South Warner Wilderness are assigned to the Lava Beds
IMPROVE monitor; and, the Lassen Volcanic National Park, the Caribou
wilderness, and the Thousand Lakes wilderness are assigned to the
Lassen Volcanic IMPROVE monitor.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Table 2-1, ``IMPROVE monitors and Visibility at California
Class I Areas'', page 2-3, CRHP provides a detailed listing of
IMPROVE monitor assignments. Also, see Figure 2-1, CRHP,
``California's Geographic Sub-regions'', page 2-6 for a visual
representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California's four sub-regions for analyzing regional haze represent
groupings that consider the unique terrain, ecology, land use, and
weather patterns around each IMPROVE monitor. ARB's detailed
examination of the resultant ambient air monitoring data showed
similarities within definable intra-State regions. These four sub-
regions are different from each other based on physiographic features
and land use patterns. California has grouped its Class I Areas by
geographic sub-region to facilitate comparison of different landscapes,
meteorological conditions, the impacts of local and regional emissions,
and the results of local and regional control measures.
California identified Class I areas outside of the state that are
affected by California's regional haze pollutants. (CRHP, Figure 8.1)
The CRHP also examined specific visibility effects of emissions on the
following Class I areas outside of the state: Jarbidge Wilderness Area,
Nevada; Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area and Crater Lake National Park,
Oregon; and, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area and Grand Canyon National
Park, Arizona.
To conclude, we believe that California has identified all of Class
I areas in the state that may be affected by emissions from California.
Also, California identified Class I areas in neighboring states that
may be affected by emissions from California. (CRHP, Figure 8.1)
B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress
ARB developed the visibility estimates in the CRHP using models and
analytical tools provided by the WRAP. We have reviewed the models and
analytical tools used by the WRAP and those used by ARB in developing
the CHRP. In summary, we found that the models were used appropriately,
consistent with EPA guidance in effect at the time of their use. The
models used by the WRAP were state-of-the-science at the time the
modeling was conducted and model performance was adequate for the
purposes that they were used.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For our detailed review and discussion, please see
``Technical Support Document for Technical Products Prepared by the
Western Regional Air Partnership in Support of Western Regional Haze
Plans'', Final, February 2011 (WRAP TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility
impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using
monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to calculate
the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I area,
based on the average of annual values over the five-year period.
Appendix B of the CRHP provides the details of these 2000-2004 baseline
deciview calculations for each Class I area.
For each Class I area, ARB calculated, in deciviews, the current
visibility conditions (worst 20 percent of days) for the 2000-2004
baseline period (Table 1, column A) and the future natural conditions
for 2064 (Table 1, column D), the long-term programmatic goal. ARB
calculated the deciview value representing the best visibility days
during 2000-2004 baseline conditions, a value that must be maintained
in future years.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Table 8 for a complete listing of the ``best 20 percent
of days'' and ``worst 20 percent of days'' and a comparison between
2000-2004 and 2018 deciview values for each California Class I area.
[[Page 13951]]
Table 1--Visibility Calculations for California Class I Areas
[Grouped by related IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Date natural
Class I Area (NP = National 2000-04 Reasonable 2018 Uniform condition
Park, WA = Wilderness Area, NM = Baseline Progress Goal Rate of 2064 Natural reached at RPG
National Monument, NS = National (worst 20% of (RPG) (worst Progress condition rate of
Seashore) days) 20% of days) estimate (URP) improvement
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly 17.4 16.4 15.2 7.9 2137
Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor)...
Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA 15.1 14.4 13.4 7.9 2148
(LABE monitor).................
Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, 14.2 13.3 12.6 7.3 2123
Thousand Lakes WA (LAVO
monitor).......................
Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA 12.6 12.3 11.1 6.1 2307
(BLIS monitor).................
Hoover WA (HOOV monitor)........ 12.9 12.5 11.7 7.7 2186
Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE 17.6 16.7 15.3 7.6 2160
monitor).......................
Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John 15.5 14.9 13.6 7.1 2200
Muir WA (KAIS monitor).........
Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP 25.4 22.7 21.2 7.7 2096
(SEQU monitor).................
Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor).... 19.4 18.1 16.6 7.5 2132
Redwood NP (REDW monitor)....... 18.5 17.8 17.4 13.9 2096
Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor)... 22.8 21.3 21.2 15.8 2069
Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN 18.5 16.7 16.0 8.0 2086
monitor).......................
San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor).... 18.8 17.3 16.2 7.6 2109
San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA 19.9 17.4 16.9 7.0 2076
(SAGA monitor).................
San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA 22.2 19.9 18.7 7.3 2095
(SAGO monitor).................
Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor).... 23.5 21.6 19.8 7.6 2121
Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor)... 19.6 17.9 16.7 7.2 2106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 7-2, page 7-10, CRHP.
2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate
ARB calculated the uniform rate of progress (URP) estimate for each
Class I area using the 2000-2004 baseline deciview and 2064
programmatic goal deciview values. Essentially, the URP is represented
as the line drawn between a given Class I area's 2004 baseline value
and 2064 natural condition or programmatic goal value. This line is
linear and assumes the same increment of progress every year for 60
years. Figure 7-1 of the CRHP provides an illustration of the uniform
rate of progress calculation and its graphic representation. ARB then
calculated each Class I area's URP estimate for 2018.\16\ The URPs for
each Class I area are listed in Table 1, column C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Table 7-2, ``Summary of Reasonable Progress Goal and
Uniform Rate of Progress to Future Natural Conditions, 2018 Worst
Days URP,'' page 7-10, CRHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has determined that California has produced the following
visibility estimates in deciviews for each Class I area: Baseline
visibility conditions; a ten-year reasonable progress estimate for
2018; a 2018 uniform rate of progress estimate for comparison purposes;
and a 2064 natural condition estimate. We propose to find that these
estimates are consistent with the requirements of the RHR, particularly
those requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) and (iii). Also, we
propose to find that California has produced URP estimates consistent
with the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
C. California Emissions Inventories
The RHR requires a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). In
establishing baseline visibility conditions in each Class I area, the
CRHP provides an emissions inventory for 2002, representing the mid-
point of the 2000-2004 baseline timeframe. Also, to chart progress in
each Class I area, the CRHP estimated emissions for 2018, the first
ten-year programmatic milestone. The emissions inventories estimate
annual emissions for the following haze producing pollutants: Oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter
smaller than 10 microns but larger than 2.5 microns (PM coarse), fine
particulate matter from organic carbon (OC Fine PM), fine particulate
matter from elemental carbon (EC Fine PM), and fine particulate matter
from other sources (Other Fine PM). The emissions inventories are
divided into four source categories: Stationary sources, area sources,
mobile sources, and natural sources. See Table 2. This information was
also analyzed to compare anthropogenic versus natural sources of
emissions. See Table 3.
Table 2--Emissions Inventory for California Regional Haze Pollutants by Source Category for 2002 and 2018
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary (tpy) Area (tpy) Mobile (tpy) Natural (tpy)
Pollutant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX................................................. 104,991 109,514 112,988 112,789 909,380 370,385 93,043 93,043
[[Page 13952]]
SO2................................................. 42,227 49,632 9,139 10,134 11,588 3,800 9,840 9,840
VOC................................................. 54,632 54,631 335,114 594,843 518,405 232,839 2,890,198 2,890,198
NH3................................................. 433 0 202,045 193,486 22,679 30,430 7,595 7,595
PM Coarse........................................... 10,172 13,700 263,902 291,429 5,075 6,389 23,124 23,124
Fine PM OC.......................................... 5,515 3,696 44,986 36,777 13,991 15,834 92,097 92,097
Fine PM EC.......................................... 933 835 5,887 5,503 21,577 12,589 19,078 19,078
Other PM Fine....................................... 10,537 12,317 55,005 54,016 2,125 2,929 5,880 5,880
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 3-2, ``Individual Pollutants and Source Categories,'' page 3-4 CRHP.
Table 3--2002 Emissions Inventory for Anthropogenic and Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source (tons/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anthropogenic
Pollutant Anthropogenic Natural share (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.......................................................... 1,127,359 93,043 92
SO2.......................................................... 62,954 9,840 86
VOC.......................................................... 908,151 2,890,198 24
NH3.......................................................... 225,157 7,595 97
PM Coarse.................................................... 279,148 23,124 92
OC Fine PM................................................... 64,491 92,097 41
EC Fine PM................................................... 28,397 19,078 60
Other PM Fine................................................ 67,667 5,880 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Based on Table 3-1, ``Overall Emission Source Inventory,'' page 3-3 CRHP.
D. Sources of Visibility Impairment
Within Appendix B of the CRHP, ARB analyzed the contribution of
various pollutants to light extinction (i.e., visibility impairment)
for each Class I area in the state. EPA compiled California's data for
each of the Class I areas into a single table. Table 4 shows how much
each pollutant contributed to light extinction at each of California's
Class I areas during the period from 2000 to 2004.
Table 4--Percentage of Light Extinction Contributed by Each Pollutant in California Class I Areas on Worst 20%
of Days, 2000-2004
[Averaged observations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO3 and/ SO4 and/
Class I area or or OMC EC CM Soil Sea
