Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze, 58570-58648 [2011-23372]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58570-58648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23372]



[[Page 58569]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 183

September 21, 2011

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 52





 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Dakota; 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan 
for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional 
Haze; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 183 / Wednesday, September 21, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 58570]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406; FRL-9461-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Dakota; 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan 
for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional 
Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
a revision to the North Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
addressing regional haze submitted by the Governor of North Dakota on 
March 3, 2010, along with SIP Supplement No. 1 submitted on July 27, 
2010, and part of SIP Amendment No. 1 submitted on July 28, 2011. These 
SIP revisions were submitted to address the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act) and our rules that require states to prevent any 
future and remedy any existing man-made 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''). EPA is proposing a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the deficiencies identified in our 
proposed partial disapproval of North Dakota's regional haze SIP. In 
lieu of this proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we are proposing 
approval of a SIP revision if the State submits such a revision in a 
timely way, and the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the North 
Dakota SIP addressing the interstate transport of pollutants that the 
Governor submitted on April 6, 2009. We are proposing to disapprove it 
because it does not meet the Act's requirements concerning non-
interference with programs to protect visibility in other states. To 
address this deficiency, we are proposing a FIP.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before November 21, 
2011. Public Hearing. A public hearing for this proposal is scheduled 
to be held on Thursday, October 13, 2011, at the Bismarck Veterans 
Memorial Public Library, Meeting Room A, 515 North 5th Street, 
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501, (701) 355-1480. The public hearing will 
be held from 3 p.m. until 5 p.m., and again from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m.
    The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity 
to present information and opinions to EPA concerning our proposal. 
Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in 
the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted 
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as 
any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public 
hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearing. 
When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to 
all oral and written comments received on our proposal.
    At the public hearing, the hearing officer may limit the time 
available for each commenter to address the proposal to 5 minutes or 
less if the hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will 
not be providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or 
make computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written 
or oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public 
hearing. Verbatim transcripts, in English, of the hearing and written 
statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2010-0406, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: r8airndhaze@epa.gov.
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing 
comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday 
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 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-R08-OAR-
2010-0406. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made 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 that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included 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. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, 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, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (303) 
312-6281, or Fallon.Gail@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:

[[Page 58571]]

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.
    (v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards.
    (vi) The words North Dakota and State mean the State of North 
Dakota.
    (vii) The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit 
Technology.
    (viii) The initials RP mean or refer to Reasonable Progress.
    (ix) The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    (x) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    (xi) The initials NH3 mean or refer to ammonia.
    (xii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.
    (xiii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
    (xiv) The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
    (xv) The initials EC mean or refer to elemental carbon.
    (xvi) The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compounds.
    (xvii) The initials EGUs mean or refer to Electric Generating 
Units.
    (xviii) The initials RPGs mean or refer to Reasonable Progress 
Goals.
    (xix) The initials LTS mean or refer to Long-Term Strategy.
    (xx) The initials RAVI mean or refer to Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment.
    (xxi) The initials FLMs mean or refer to Federal Land Managers.
    (xxii) The initials URP mean or refer to Uniform Rate of Progress.
    (xxiii) The initials MRYS mean or refer to Milton R. Young Station.
    (xxiv) The initials LOS mean or refer to Leland Olds Station.
    (xxv) The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency Monitoring 
of Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.
    (xxvi) The initials RPOs mean or refer to regional planning 
organizations.
    (xxvii) The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional Air 
Program.
    (xxviii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of 
Signification Deterioration.
    (xxix) The initials Theodore Roosevelt or TRNP mean or refer to 
Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
    (xxx) The initials Lostwood or LWA mean or refer to Lostwood 
National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Area.
    (xxxi) The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support 
Document.
    (xxxii) The initials IWAQM mean or refer to Interagency Workgroup 
on Air Quality Modeling.
    (xxxiii) The initials FGD mean or refer to flue gas 
desulfurization.
    (xxxiv) The initials SOFA mean or refer to separated overfire air.
    (xxxv) The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX 
burners.
    (xxxvi) The initials PRB mean or refer to Powder River Basin.
    (xxxvii) The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic 
reduction.
    (xxxviii) The initials LTO mean or refer to low temperature 
oxidation.
    (xxxix) The initials NSCR mean or refer to non-selective catalytic 
reduction.
    (xl) The initials ECO mean or refer to electro-catalytic oxidation.
    (xli) The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic 
reduction.
    (xlii) The initials RRI mean or refer to rich reagent injection.
    (xliii) The initials FGR mean or refer to external flue gas 
recirculation.
    (xliv) The initials OFA mean or refer to overfire air.
    (xlv) The initials HE-SNCR mean or refer to hydrocarbon enhanced 
SNCR.
    (xlvi) The initials CGR mean or refer to conventional gas reburn.
    (xlvii) The initials FLGR mean or refer to fuel-lean gas reburn.
    (xlviii) The initials ROFA mean or refer to rotating overfire air.
    (xlix) The initials LDSCR mean or refer to low-dust SCR.
    (l) The initials TESCR mean or refer to tail-end SCR.
    (li) The initials ASOFA mean or refer to advanced separated 
overfire air.
    (lii) The initials OEC mean or refer to oxygen enhanced combustion.
    (liii) The initials FGD mean or refer to flue gas desulfurization 
system.
    (liv) The initials CoHPAC mean or refer to compact hybrid 
particulate collector.
    (lv) The initials CAM mean or refer to compliance assurance 
monitoring.
    (lvi) The initials CEMS mean or refer to continuous emission 
monitoring systems.
    (lvii) The initials CMAQ mean or refer to Community Multi-Scale Air 
Quality modeling system.
    (lviii) The initials SMOKE mean or refer to Sparse Matrix Operator 
Kernel Emissions modeling system.
    (lix) The initials CAMx mean or refer to Comprehensive Air Quality 
Model.
    (lx) The initials EIA mean or refer to Energy Information Agency.
    (lxi) The initials GRE mean or refer to Great River Energy.
    (lxii) The initials RMC mean or refer to the Regional Modeling 
Center at the University of California Riverside.
    (lxiii) The initials WEP mean or refer to Weighted Emissions 
Potential.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Proposed Actions
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants that Impact Visibility
II. SIP and FIP Background
III. What is the background for our proposed actions?
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    C. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
IV. 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 (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
V. Our Analysis of North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
    3. Natural Visibility Impairment
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
    C. Evaluation of North Dakota's BART Determinations other than 
for NOX for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2, Leland 
Olds Station Unit 2, and Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2
    1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
    2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    a. Modeling Methodology
    b. Contribution Threshold
    c. Sources Identified by North Dakota as Subject to BART
    3. BART Determinations and Federally Enforceable Limits
    a. Great River Energy, Coal Creek Station
    b. Great River Energy, Stanton Station
    c. Minnkota Power Cooperative, Milton R. Young Station (MRYS)
    d. Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Leland Olds Station (LOS)
    e. North Dakota BART Results and Summary
    D. Evaluation of North Dakota's NOX BART 
Determinations for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2, Leland 
Olds

[[Page 58572]]

Station Unit 2, and Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2
    1. Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station 
Unit 2
    a. Milton R. Young Station Unit 1--State Analysis
    b. Milton R. Young Station Unit 2--State Analysis
    c. Leland Olds Station Unit 2--State Analysis
    d. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Cost Analyses for 
NOX BART for Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 and 2 and 
Leland Olds Station Unit 2
    e. EPA's Evaluation of the State's Visibility Analyses for 
NOX BART for Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 and 2 and 
Leland Olds Station Unit 2
    2. Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2
    a. Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2--State Analysis
    b. EPA's Evaluation of the State's NOX BART Review 
for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2
    E. Federal Implementation Plan to Address NOX BART 
for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2, and Leland Olds Station 
Unit 2
    1. Introduction
    2. BART analysis for Milton R. Young Station 1
    3. BART analysis for Milton R. Young Station 2
    4. BART analysis for Leland Olds Station 2
    F. Federal Implementation Plan to Address NOX BART 
for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2
    1. Introduction
    2. BART analysis for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2
    G. Evaluation of North Dakota's Reasonable Progress Goal
    1. North Dakota's Visibility Modeling
    2. North Dakota's Reasonable Progress ``Four-Factor'' Analysis
    3. North Dakota's Conclusions from the Four-Factor Analysis
    4. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goal
    5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
    6. Our Conclusion on North Dakota's Reasonable Progress Goal and 
Need for Additional Controls
    H. Our Conclusion on North Dakota's Reasonable Progress Goal and 
Need for Additional Controls
    I. Federal Implementation Plan to Address Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) Reasonable Progress Measures for Antelope Valley 
Station Units 1 and 2 and Reasonable Progress Goals
    1. Introduction
    2. Reasonable Progress Analysis for Antelope Valley Station 
Units 1 and 2
    J. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Emissions Inventories
    2. Sources of Visibility Impairment in North Dakota Class I 
Areas
    3. Visibility Projection Modeling
    4. Consultation and Emissions Reductions for Other States' Class 
I Areas
    5. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy Factors
    a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
    b. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
    c. Emission Limitation and Schedules of Compliance
    d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
    f. Enforceability of North Dakota's Measures
    g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
    h. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports
    K. Coordination of Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment 
and Regional Haze Requirements
    L. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
    M. Federal Land Manager Coordination
    N. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-year Progress Reports
VI. Our Analysis of North Dakota's Interstate Visibility Transport 
SIP Provisions
VII. FIP for Interstate Visibility Transport
VIII. Proposed Actions
    A. Regional Haze
    B. Interstate Transport and Visibility
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

List of Tables

Table 1. Visibility Impact Reductions Needed Based on Best and Worst 
Days Baselines, Natural Conditions, and Uniform Rate of Progress 
Goals for North Dakota Class I Areas
Table 2. Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress
Table 3. List of BART--Eligible Sources in North Dakota
Table 4. Individual BART--Eligible Source Visibility Impacts on 
North Dakota Class I Areas
Table 5. Summary of Coal Creek SO2 BART Analysis for Unit 
1 and Unit 2 Boilers
Table 6. Summary of Coal Creek Filterable PM BART Analysis for Unit 
1 and Unit 2 Boilers
Table 7. Summary of Stanton SO2 BART Analysis for Unit 1 
Boiler with Lignite Coal
Table 8. Summary of Stanton SO2 BART Analysis for Unit 1 
Boiler with Powder River Basin Coal
Table 9. Summary of Stanton NOX BART Analysis for Unit 1 
Boiler with Lignite Coal
Table 10. Summary of Stanton NOX BART Analysis for Unit 1 
Boiler with Powder River Basin Coal
Table 11. Summary of Stanton PM BART Analysis for Unit 1 Boiler with 
Lignite Coal
Table 12. Summary of Milton R. Young Station SO2 BART 
Analysis for Unit 1 Boiler
Table 13. Summary of Milton R. Young Station PM BART Analysis for 
Unit 1 Boiler
Table 14. Summary of Milton R. Young Station SO2 BART 
Analysis for Unit 2 Boiler
Table 15. Summary of Milton R. Young Station PM BART Analysis for 
Unit 2 Boiler
Table 16. Summary of Leland Olds Station SO2 BART 
Analysis for Unit 1 Boiler
Table 17. Summary of Leland Olds Station NOX BART 
Analysis for Unit 1 Boiler
Table 18. Summary of Leland Olds Station PM BART Analysis for Unit 1 
Boiler
Table 19. Summary of Leland Olds Station SO2 BART 
Analysis for Unit 2 Boiler
Table 20. Summary of Leland Olds Station PM BART Analysis for Unit 2 
Boiler
Table 21. North Dakota BART Determinations for SO2 
Emissions that EPA is Proposing to Approve
Table 22. North Dakota BART Determinations for NOX 
Emissions that EPA is Proposing to Approve
Table 23. Summary of Milton R. Young Station NOX BART 
Analysis for Unit 1 Boiler
Table 24. Summary of Milton R. Young Station NOX BART 
Analysis for Unit 2 Boiler
Table 25. Summary of Leland Olds Station NOX BART 
Analysis for Unit 2 Boiler
Table 26. North Dakota BART Determinations for NOX 
Emissions for Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds 
Station Unit 2
Table 27. Contrast of TESCR Cost Effectiveness
Table 28. Comparison of EPA Control Cost Manual and Burns & 
McDonnell Indirect Capital Costs
Table 29. Comparison of EPA Control Cost Manual & B&McD ``Other'' 
Capital Costs
Table 30. Comparison of Sargent & Lundy and Dr. Fox's Tail-End SCR 
Variable Operation and Maintenance Costs for Leland Olds Station 
Unit 2 (2009 Dollars)
Table 31. Summary of Coal Creek NOX BART Analysis for 
Unit 1 and Unit 2 Boilers
Table 32. Summary of EPA NOX BART Analysis Control 
Technologies for Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 33. Summary of EPA NOX BART Capital Cost Analysis 
for SNCR on Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 34. Summary of EPA NOX BART Annual Analysis for 
SNCR on Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 35. Summary of EPA NOX BART Costs for SNCR on 
Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 36. Summary of EPA NOX BART Capital Cost Analysis 
for TESCR on Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 37. Summary of EPA NOX BART Annual Costs for TESCR 
Scenario 3 \1\ on Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 38. Summary of EPA NOX BART Costs for Various TESCR 
Scenarios on Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 39. Summary of EPA NOX BART Analysis Comparison of 
TESCR and SNCR Options for Milton R. Young Station Unit 1 Boiler
Table 40. Summary of EPA NOX BART Analysis Control 
Technologies for Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 41. Summary of EPA NOX BART Capital Cost Analysis 
for SNCR on Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 42. Summary of EPA NOX BART Annual Analysis for 
SNCR on Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 43. Summary of EPA NOX BART Costs for SNCR on 
Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 44. Summary of EPA NOX BART Capital Cost Analysis 
for TESCR

[[Page 58573]]

Scenario 3 \1\ on Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 45. Summary of EPA NOX BART Annual Costs for TESCR 
Scenario 3 \1\ on Unit 2 Boiler
Table 46. Summary of EPA NOX BART Costs for Various TESCR 
+ ASOFA Scenarios on Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 47. Summary of EPA NOX BART Analysis Comparison of 
TESCR and SNCR Options for Milton R. Young Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 48. Summary of EPA NOX BART Analysis Control 
Technologies for Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 49. Summary of EPA NOX BART Capital Cost Analysis 
for SNCR on Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 50. Summary of EPA NOX BART Annual Costs for SNCR 
on Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 51. Summary of EPA NOX BART Costs for SNCR on 
Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 52. Summary of EPA NOX BART Capital Cost Analysis 
for TESCR Scenario 3 on Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 53. Summary of Some EPA NOX BART Annual Costs for 
TESCR Scenario 3 \1\ on Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 54. Summary of EPA NOX BART Costs for Various TESCR 
+ ASOFA Scenarios on Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 55. Summary of EPA NOX BART Analysis Comparison of 
TESCR and SNCR Options for Leland Olds Station Unit 2 Boiler
Table 56. Summary of EPA Coal Creek BART Analysis Control 
Technologies for Units 1 and 2 Boilers
Table 57. Summary of EPA NOX BART Capital Cost Analysis 
for SNCR on Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2 Boilers
Table 58. Summary of EPA Annual Cost Analysis for SNCR + ASOFA on 
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2 Boilers
Table 59. Summary of EPA Costs for SNCR on Coal Creek Station Units 
1 and 2 Boilers
Table 60. Summary of EPA Capital Cost Analysis for LDSCR on Coal 
Creek Station Units 1 and 2 Boilers
Table 61. Summary of EPA Annual Cost Analysis for LDSCR on Coal 
Creek Station Units 1 and 2 Boilers
Table 62. Summary of EPA Costs for LDSCR on Coal Creek Station Units 
1 and 2 Boilers
Table 63. Summary of EPA NOX BART Analysis for Coal Creek 
Station Units 1 and 2 Boilers
Table 64. North Dakota Q/D Analysis Sources with Results Greater 
than 10
Table 65. North Dakota Sources for Reasonable Progress Four-Factor 
Analyses
Table 66. Current Control for Reasonable Progress Sources
Table 67. Control Option Costs for Reasonable Progress Sources
Table 68. ND's Modeled Visibility Improvement for Reasonable 
Progress Sources
Table 69. Comparison of Reasonable Progress Goals to Uniform Rate of 
Progress on Most Impaired Days for North Dakota Class I Areas
Table 70. Comparison of Reasonable Progress Goals to Baseline 
Conditions on Least Impaired Days for North Dakota Class I Areas
Table 71. Summary of Antelope Valley Station NOX 
Reasonable Progress Analysis Control Technologies for Units 1 and 2 
Boilers
Table 72. Summary of Antelope Valley Station NOX 
Reasonable Progress Cost Analysis for Units 1 and 2 Boilers
Table 73. North Dakota SO2 Emission Inventory--2002 and 
2018
Table 74. North Dakota NOX Emission Inventory--2002 and 
2018
Table 75. North Dakota Organic Carbon Emission Inventory--2002 and 
2018
Table 76. North Dakota Elemental Carbon Emission Inventory--2002 and 
2018
Table 77. North Dakota PM2.5 Emission Inventory--2002 and 
2018
Table 78. North Dakota Coarse Particulate Matter Emission 
Inventory--2002 and 2018
Table 79. ND Sources Extinction Contribution 2000-2004 for 20% Worst 
Days
Table 80. Source Region Apportionment for 20% Worst Days 
(Percentage)
Table 81. Annual Average Emissions from Fire (2000-2004) (Tons/Year)

I. Overview of Proposed Actions

A. Regional Haze

    We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove North 
Dakota's regional haze State Implementation Plan (Regional Haze SIP) 
revision that was submitted on March 3, 2010, SIP Supplement No. 1 that 
was submitted on July 27, 2010, and part of SIP Amendment No. 1 that 
was submitted on July 28, 2011. Specifically, we propose to disapprove 
the following:
     North Dakota's NOX BART determinations and 
emissions limits for Units 1 and 2 of Minnkota Power Cooperative's 
Milton R. Young Station, Unit 2 of Basin Electric Power Cooperative's 
Leland Olds Station, and Units 1 and 2 of Great River Energy's Coal 
Creek Station.
     North Dakota's determination under the reasonable progress 
requirements found at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) that no additional 
NOX emissions controls are warranted at Units 1 and 2 of 
Basin Electric Power Cooperative's Antelope Valley Station.
     North Dakota's Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs).
     Portions of North Dakota's long-term strategy that rely on 
or reflect other aspects of the Regional Haze SIP we are proposing to 
disapprove.
    We are proposing to approve the remaining aspects of North Dakota's 
Regional Haze SIP revision that was submitted on March 3, 2010 and SIP 
Supplement No. 1 that was submitted on July 27, 2010. We are proposing 
to approve the following parts of SIP Amendment No. 1 that the State 
submitted on July 28, 2011: (1) Amendments to Section 10.6.1.2 
pertaining to Coyote Station, and (2) amendments to Appendix A.4, the 
Permit to Construct of Coyote Station. We are not proposing action on 
the remainder of the July 28, 2011 submittal at this time.
    We are proposing the promulgation of a FIP to address the 
deficiencies in the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP that we have 
identified in this proposal.
    The proposed FIP includes the following elements:
     NOX BART determinations and emission limits for 
Milton R. Young Station Units 1 and 2 and Leland Olds Station Unit 2 of 
0.07 lb/MMBtu (pounds per one million British Thermal Units) that apply 
singly to each of these units on a 30-day rolling average, and a 
requirement that the owners/operators comply with these NOX 
BART limits within five (5) years of the effective date of our final 
rule.
     NOX BART determination and emission limit for 
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2 of 0.12 lb/MMBtu that applies singly 
to each of these units on a 30-day rolling average, but inviting 
comment on whether 0.14 lb/MMBtu should be the limit instead, and a 
requirement that the owners/operators comply with these NOX 
BART limits within five (5) years of the effective date of our final 
rule.
     A reasonable progress determination and NOX 
emission limit for Antelope Valley Station Units 1 and 2 of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu that applies singly to each of these units on a 30-day rolling 
average, and a requirement that the owner/operator meet the limit as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than July 31, 2018.
     Monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements for 
the above seven units to ensure compliance with these emission 
limitations.
     Reasonable progress goals consistent with the SIP limits 
proposed for approval and the proposed FIP limits.
     Long-term strategy elements that reflect the other aspects 
of the proposed FIP.
    In lieu of this proposed FIP, or portion thereof, we are proposing 
approval of a SIP revision if the State submits such a revision in a 
timely way, and the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP, or 
relevant portion thereof.

[[Page 58574]]

B. Interstate Transport of Pollutants That Impact Visibility

    We are proposing to disapprove a portion of the SIP revision North 
Dakota submitted on April 6, 2009, for the purpose of addressing the 
``good neighbor'' provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that states have a SIP, or 
submit a SIP revision, containing provisions ``prohibiting any source 
or other type 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 under part C [of the CAA] * * * to protect visibility.'' 
Because of the potential significant impacts on visibility from the 
interstate transport of pollutants, we interpret the ``good neighbor'' 
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) as requiring states to include in 
their SIPs either measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere 
with the reasonable progress goals required to be set to protect Class 
I areas in other states, or a demonstration that emissions from North 
Dakota sources and activities will not have the prohibited impacts 
under the existing SIP.
    The State's April 6, 2009 SIP submission suggested that North 
Dakota intended to address the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by a timely submission of its Regional Haze SIP by 
December of 2007, but the State did not make that submission until 
March 3, 2010. Moreover, while North Dakota ultimately submitted a 
Regional Haze SIP revision that addresses visibility and reasonable 
progress goals directly, North Dakota did not explicitly specify that 
it was submitting the Regional Haze SIP revision to satisfy the 
visibility prong of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Most importantly, however, EPA 
must review the April 6, 2009 submission in light of the current facts 
and circumstances, and the Regional Haze SIP revision that the State 
ultimately submitted does not fully meet the substantive requirements 
of the regional haze program. The State made no other SIP submission in 
which it indicated that it intended to meet the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in any other way. Accordingly, we are 
proposing to disapprove North Dakota's April 6, 2009 SIP submittal for 
the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because that 
submittal neither contains adequate measures to eliminate emissions 
that would interfere with the required visibility programs in other 
states, nor a demonstration that the existing North Dakota SIP already 
includes measures sufficient to eliminate such prohibited impacts.
    We are proposing the promulgation of a FIP to address the 
deficiency in North Dakota's April 6, 2009 SIP submission that we have 
identified in this proposal, in order to meet the interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility. 
Specifically, the proposed FIP consists of a finding that the 
combination of our proposed partial approval of North Dakota's Regional 
Haze SIP and our proposed partial FIP for regional haze for North 
Dakota will satisfy the interstate transport requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility. The emissions 
reductions resulting from the combination SIP/FIP and other provisions 
contained in the SIP will ensure non-interference with the required 
visibility programs of other states, as well as simultaneously meet the 
substantive requirements of the regional haze program. Simultaneous 
action on both the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and regional haze 
program requirements will also be the most efficient approach to ensure 
that sources in North Dakota are controlled adequately to meet both 
requirements, and to avoid the possibility that sources might be 
required to implement two successive levels of controls in order to 
meet both requirements.

II. SIP and FIP Background

    The CAA requires each state to develop plans to meet various air 
quality requirements, including protection of visibility. CAA sections 
110(a), 169A, and 169B. The plans developed by a state are referred to 
as SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and SIP revisions to us for 
approval. Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by EPA and citizens under 
the CAA, also known as being federally enforceable. If a state fails to 
make a required SIP submittal or if we find that a state's required 
submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP 
to fill this regulatory gap. CAA section 110(c)(1). As discussed 
elsewhere in this notice, we are proposing to disapprove aspects of 
North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP. We are also proposing to disapprove, 
as not meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the 
CAA regarding visibility, North Dakota's interstate transport SIP. We 
are proposing FIPs to address the deficiencies in North Dakota's 
regional haze and interstate transport SIPs.

III. What is the background for our proposed actions?

A. Regional Haze

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust) and its 
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and 
in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs)). These precursors react in the atmosphere to form 
PM2.5. PM2.5 impairs visibility by scattering and 
absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and 
visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 also can cause 
serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to 
environmental effects 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 \1\ 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. 
64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999). 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. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the 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 \2\ which 
impairment

[[Page 58575]]

results from manmade air pollution.'' CAA Sec.  169A(a)(1). The terms 
``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment'' are defined 
in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and atmospheric 
discoloration. Id. section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we 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 (December 2, 1980). These regulations represented 
the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. We 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 had improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See CAA section 
162(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in 
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See 
44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a mandatory Class I 
area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 
expansions. CAA section 162(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'' (FLM). See 
CAA section 302(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, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 
1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 
P. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations 
to integrate into them provisions addressing regional haze impairment 
and 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 our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 
51.300-309. Some of the main regional haze requirements are summarized 
in section IV of this action. The requirement to submit a Regional Haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin 
Islands. States were required to submit a SIP addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\3\ 40 CFR 
51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's regional haze regulations require subsequent updates 
to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Few States submitted a Regional Haze SIP prior to the December 17, 
2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states, 
including North Dakota, and the District of Columbia and the Virgin 
Islands, had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze 
requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once EPA has found that a State has failed to 
make a required submission, EPA is required to promulgate a FIP within 
two years unless the State submits a SIP and the Agency approves it 
within the two year period. CAA Sec.  110(c)(1).

B. 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. 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 strategies in 
coordination 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, we have encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were formed to address regional haze and related 
issues. The regional planning organizations 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 Program (WRAP) is a collaborative effort 
of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal agencies 
established to conduct data analyses, conduct pollutant transport 
modeling, and coordinate planning activities among the western states. 
Member state governments include: Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South 
Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 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.

C. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)

    On July 18, 1997, we promulgated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the 
CAA requires states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS 
within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or within such 
shorter period as we may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists 
the elements that such new SIPs must address, as applicable, including 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of 
certain emissions.
    On April 25, 2005, we published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit 
SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS.'' 70 FR 21147. This action included a finding that North Dakota 
and other states had failed to submit SIPs to address interstate 
transport of air pollution affecting required visibility programs in 
other states, among other things, and started a 2-year clock for the 
promulgation of a FIP by us, unless a state made a submission to meet 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and we approved the 
submission, prior to that time. Id.
    On August 15, 2006, we issued our ``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). We developed the 2006 Guidance to make recommendations to 
states for making submissions to meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    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 another state 
in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
contains four distinct requirements or ``prongs'' 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.
    Acknowledging that the Regional Haze SIPs were still under 
development and were not due until December 17, 2007, the 2006 Guidance 
recommended that states could make a simple SIP submission confirming 
that it was not possible at that point in time to assess whether there 
was any interference with

[[Page 58576]]

measures in the applicable SIP for another state designed to ``protect 
visibility'' for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). We note that 
our 2006 Guidance was based on the premise that as of the time of its 
issuance in August 2006, it was reasonable for EPA to recommend that 
states could merely indicate that the imminent Regional Haze SIP would 
be the appropriate means to establish that its SIP contained adequate 
provisions to prevent interference with the visibility programs 
required in other states. As discussed in more detail below, at this 
point in time, EPA must review the submissions in light of the actual 
facts and in light of the statutory requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    On June 2, 2009, WildEarth Guardians sued EPA for our failure to 
take action to promulgate FIPs, or to act on submitted SIPs in lieu 
thereof, to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Seven western 
states were named in the lawsuit: Colorado, North Dakota, New Mexico, 
Oklahoma, California, Idaho, and Oregon. A consent decree was filed on 
November 10, 2009. The consent decree included various dates by which 
EPA was required to take action on each of the four prongs of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for each of the seven states for both of the applicable 
NAAQS. It required that EPA sign a notice by May 10, 2011, approving a 
SIP or FIP or combination SIP/FIP for North Dakota meeting the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) regarding interference with 
measures in other states related to protection of visibility. Pursuant 
to a subsequent modification to the consent decree and a subsequent 
stipulation, this date for final action was extended to February 9, 
2012. The modification and subsequent stipulation also required that 
EPA sign a notice of proposed rulemaking by September 1, 2011.
    On April 6, 2009, we received a SIP revision from North Dakota to 
address the interstate transport provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 
prior actions we approved this North Dakota SIP submittal for the three 
other prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). (75 FR 31290, June 3, 2010 and 
75 FR 71023, November 22, 2010). However, as noted above, we are 
proposing to disapprove the submittal for purposes of the visibility 
prong and are proposing a FIP to address this requirement. Acting on 
both the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement and the Regional Haze 
SIP requirement simultaneously will ensure the most efficient use of 
resources by the affected sources and EPA.

IV. What are the requirements for Regional Haze SIPs?

    The following is a summary of the requirements of the Regional Haze 
Rule. See 40 CFR 51.308 for further detail regarding the requirements 
of the rule.

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 our 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 Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview (dv) as the 
principal metric for measuring visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 39118. This 
visibility metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in 
terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility 
conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 
sometimes expressed in terms of the visual range, which is the greatest 
distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can just be 
distinguished against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure for 
tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview change 
is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human 
eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility of one deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule provides additional 
details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (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 manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause 
regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, 
i.e., manmade 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 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the Regional Haze Rule requires 
states to determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the 
average of the 20 percent least impaired (``best'') and the average of 
the 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. We have provided guidance to 
states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural and current 
visibility conditions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under 
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-005, available 
at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/Regional Haze _
envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance''); and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the 
Regional Haze Rule, (September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-004, available at 
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, 
(hereinafter referred to as our ``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

[[Page 58577]]

visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions to the 
then current conditions will indicate the 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 reasonable progress goals 
(i.e., two distinct goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the 
``worst'' days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year 
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f). The Regional Haze 
Rule 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, states 
must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired 
days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period. Id.
    In establishing reasonable progress goals, states are required to 
consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA 
and in our Regional Haze Rule 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 reasonable progress goals for the best and worst days for 
each applicable Class I area. In setting the reasonable progress goals, 
states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural 
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to hereafter as the ``Uniform 
Rate of Progress'') and the emission reduction measures needed to 
achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. 
Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 
2064 represents a rate of progress, which states are to use for 
analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. 
If a state establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides for a 
slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be 
needed to attain natural conditions by 2064, the state must 
demonstrate, based on the reasonable progress factors, that the rate of 
progress for the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 
2064 is not reasonable, and that the progress goal adopted by the state 
is reasonable. In setting reasonable progress goals, 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 
State's Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining whether 
a state's goals for visibility improvement provide for reasonable 
progress toward natural visibility conditions, EPA is required to 
evaluate the demonstrations developed by the state pursuant to 
paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(iii).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources with the potential to emit 250 tons or more per year 
of any pollutant in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act 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 \6\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
BART, as determined by the state or by EPA in the case of a plan 
promulgated under section 110(c) of the CAA. Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject to BART 
are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, we published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (``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. 70 
FR 39104. In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired 
electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 
750 megawatts (MW), 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. 
Regardless of source size or type, a state must meet the requirements 
of the CAA and our regulations for selection of BART, and the state's 
BART analysis and determination must be reasonable in light of the 
overarching purpose of the regional haze program.
    The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be 
logically broken down into three steps: first, states identify those 
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth 
in 40 CFR 51.301; \7\ second, states determine which of such sources 
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause 
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a 
source which fits this description is ``subject to BART,''); and third, 
for each source subject to BART, states then identify the best 
available type and level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the 
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air 
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were 
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one 
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. We have stated 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'

[[Page 58578]]

impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher 
than 0.5 deciviews. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1.
    In their SIPs, states must identify ``BART-eligible sources'' and 
``subject-to-BART sources'' and document their BART control 
determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source'' used in the 
BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission units at a 
facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source. 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. See also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    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 of our approval of the Regional 
Haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the Regional Haze Rule, 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. See CAA section 110(a). As noted 
above, the Regional Haze Rule allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their Regional Haze SIP a 10- to 15-year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze 
Rule requires that states