Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans, 82219-82234 [2011-33586]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729; FRL–9614–7]
RIN 2060–AR05
Regional Haze: Revisions to
Provisions Governing Alternatives to
Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) Determinations,
Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal
Implementation Plans
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is proposing
revisions to rules that pertain to the
regional haze program. In this action,
the EPA is proposing that the trading
program in the recently promulgated
Transport Rule, also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, achieves
greater reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas
than source-specific Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) in those
states covered by the Transport Rule. In
this action, the EPA is also proposing a
limited disapproval of the regional haze
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that
have been submitted by Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina and
Texas. These states relied on
requirements of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) to satisfy certain regional
haze requirements. To address
deficiencies in all of the CAIRdependent regional haze SIPs, in this
action, the EPA is proposing Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to replace
reliance on the CAIR requirements in
these SIPs with reliance on the
Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART. States are encouraged, at any
time, to submit a revision to their
regional haze SIP incorporating the
requirements of the Transport Rule at
which time we will withdraw the FIP
being proposed in this action.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before February 13, 2012.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held January 17, 2012. Please
refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
additional information on the comment
period and the public hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729, by one of
the following methods:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2011–0729.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0729.
• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West
(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA West (Air
Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue
Northwest, Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2011–0729. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0729. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov,
your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters,
avoid any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about the EPA’s
public docket, visit the EPA Docket
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82219
Center homepage at www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. All documents in the docket
are listed in the 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
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566–
1742.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held on January 17, 2012, at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1st Floor, Building C, Room C111C, 109
T. W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The public
hearing will start at 10 a.m. and end at
3 p.m. or until the last registered
speaker has spoken. Because this
hearing is being held at U.S. government
facilities, everyone planning to attend
the hearing should be prepared to show
valid picture identification to the
security staff in order to gain access to
the meeting room. In addition, you will
need to obtain a property pass for any
personal belongings you bring with you.
Upon leaving the building, you will be
required to return this property pass to
the security desk. No large signs will be
allowed in the building, cameras may
only be used inside the classroom and
outside of the building, and
demonstrations will not be allowed on
federal property for security reasons.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information on this document,
contact Ms. Martha Keating, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division, Mail code
C539–04, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone (919) 541–9407; fax
number: (919) 541–0824; email address:
keating.martha@epa.gov.
To register to speak at the hearing or
attend the hearing on this document,
contact Ms. Pamela Long, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division, Mail code
C504–01, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone (919) 541–0641; fax
number: (919) 541–5509; email address:
long.pam@epa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82220
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This proposed action does not
directly regulate emission sources. It
will affect state and local air pollution
control agencies located within the
geographic areas covered by the
Transport Rule 1 and whose regional
haze state implementation plan relied
on CAIR 2 as an alternative to BART for
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or Nitrogen
Oxide (NOX)for electric generating units
(EGUs) subject to BART requirements.
Some of the EGUs located in such
geographic areas may also be affected by
the FIPs that may result from final
rulemaking on this proposed action in
that the final rule would allow states the
option of not requiring them to meet
source-specific BART emission limits to
which they otherwise could be subject.
These sources are in the following
groups:
Industry group
Electric Services ............
SIC a
492
NAICS b
221111, 221112,
221113, 221119,
221121, 221122
a Standard
b North
Industrial Classification.
American Industry Classification
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
System.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to the EPA, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed to be
CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public docket. Information so
marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
1 See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
2 See Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate
Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to
the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule, 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this notice
will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg/new.html under ‘‘Recent
Actions.’’
D. What information should I know
about a public hearing?
The hearing will be held on January
17, 2012, at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1st Floor, Building
C, Room C111C, 109 T. W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709. The public hearing will start at
10 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. or until the
last registered speaker has spoken.
Because this hearing is being held at
U.S. government facilities, everyone
planning to attend the hearing should be
prepared to show valid picture
identification to the security staff in
order to gain access to the meeting
room. In addition, you will need to
obtain a property pass for any personal
belongings you bring with you. Upon
leaving the building, you will be
required to return this property pass to
the security desk. No large signs will be
allowed in the building, cameras may
only be used inside the classroom and
outside of the building, and
demonstrations will not be allowed on
federal property for security reasons. To
register to speak at the hearing on this
document, contact Ms. Pamela Long at
(919) 541–0641 before 5 p.m. on January
13, 2012. For updates and additional
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information on a public hearing, please
check the EPA’s Web site at https://www.
epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html under
‘‘recent actions.’’
E. How is this notice organized?
The information presented in this
notice is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
C. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
D. What information should I know about
a public hearing?
E. How is this notice organized?
II. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for the EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for
Addressing Regional Haze
C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART
1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility
Progress of an Alternative Program to
BART
2. What is the Relationship between BART
and CAIR?
3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for
State Regional Haze Implementation
Plans
4. The Transport Rule and Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans
IV. Proposed Determination That the
Transport Rule Is an Approvable
Alternative to BART
A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test
B. Identification of Affected Class I Areas
C. Scenarios Examined
D. Emission Projections
E. Air Quality Modeling Results
F. Proposed Amendment to the Regional
Haze Rule
V. Proposed Limited Disapproval of Certain
States’ Regional Haze SIPs
VI. Proposed FIPs
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
II. What action is the EPA proposing to
take?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
find that the trading programs in the
Transport Rule 3 achieve greater
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in mandatory Class
I federal areas than source-specific
BART in the states in which the
Transport Rule applies. Specifically, we
are proposing that the trading programs
set out in the Transport Rule meet the
requirements of an alternative program
as prescribed in the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR) at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) and are
proposing to revise the regional haze
regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)
accordingly to allow states to substitute
participation in the trading programs
under the Transport Rule for sourcespecific BART. In addition, we are also
proposing to find that any approved
SIPs revising or adopting the Transport
Rule trading programs, which must
control emissions at least as stringently
as the Transport Rule FIPs, will also
meet the requirements for an alternative
to BART for EGUs for the pollutants
which the Transport Rule limits in that
state.
In this action, we are also proposing
a limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIPs that have been submitted by
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina and
Texas. These states, fully consistent
with the EPA’s regulations at the time,
relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy
the BART requirement and the
requirement for a long-term strategy
sufficient to achieve the state-adopted
reasonable progress goals.4 CAIR and
the CAIR FIP requirements, however,
will only remain in force to address
emissions through the 2011 control
period and thus CAIR cannot be relied
upon in a SIP as a substitute for BART
or as part of a long-term control strategy.
The EPA has already proposed limited
disapproval of certain other state
3 See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), and Federal
Implementation Plans for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin To Reduce
Interstate Transport of Ozone finalized on
December 15, 2011 for more details. For purposes
of this proposed rule, the Transport Rule includes
all of the states (28) included in the final Transport
Rule and the supplemental rule.
4 The states for which we are proposing limited
disapproval in this action are those that both relied
on CAIR to satisfy BART requirements and are now
covered by the requirements of the Transport Rule,
for which we have not already made such a
proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR.5
We plan to take final action on both
groups of SIPs when this action is
finalized.
In this action we are also proposing
FIPs for all the states for which we have
previously proposed limited
disapproval and for all the states for
which we are proposing a limited
disapproval of their regional haze SIP in
this action due to the change in status
of CAIR. Regional haze SIPs were due in
December 2007. For a number of the
states identified above, we made a
finding on January 15, 2009, that the
states had failed to timely submit a
regional haze SIP. Most of these states
have subsequently submitted SIPs, but
we have not yet acted on them. Under
the CAA, the EPA is required to
promulgate a FIP within 2 years after
finding that a state has failed to make a
required submission or after
disapproving a SIP in whole or in part,
unless the state first adopts and we have
fully approved a SIP. CAA § 110(c)(1).
Given these CAA requirements and the
fact that the Transport Rule has now
replaced CAIR, we consider it
appropriate at this time to issue FIPs to
address the deficiencies in the regional
haze SIPs related to the termination of
CAIR. Our adoption of these FIPs at this
time avoids the near-term need for
additional administrative steps on the
part of these states. The proposed
regional haze FIPs also allow states the
option of a less costly approach to
meeting the regional haze requirements
of the CAA since the proposed FIPs rely
on the trading program already
promulgated in the Transport Rule. We
encourage states, at any time, to submit
a revision to their regional haze SIP
incorporating the requirements of the
Transport Rule at which time we will
withdraw the FIP we are proposing in
this action. States may also include in
such a SIP revision provisions
applicable to specific EGU BART
sources that they anticipate (or find after
implementation of the Transport Rule)
to continue to cause visibility
impairment that the state wishes to
reduce. However, we anticipate that
some states may choose to remain
subject to the proposed FIP and not
submit a SIP revision. Our proposed
finding that the Transport Rule makes
greater reasonable progress than BART
for EGUs in these states will hold true
regardless of whether a state chooses to
submit a SIP revision under subpart
5 The states for which the EPA has previously
proposed limited disapproval of regional haze SIPs
because of reliance on CAIR are Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82221
52.38 and 52.39 or remain subject to a
FIP.
We are not proposing to disapprove
the reasonable progress targets for 2018
that are an element of the long-term
strategies for these states. The affected
states originally set the reasonable
progress goals in their SIPs based on the
emission reductions expected to be
achieved by CAIR, along with other
emission reductions qualified for that
purpose. The overall EGU emission
reductions from the Transport Rule are
larger than the EGU reductions achieved
by CAIR and the substitution of the
Transport Rule for CAIR does not
weaken any affected state’s long-term
strategy. We intend to act on the
reasonable progress goals and long-term
strategies (including the Transport Rule)
and other requirements of the RHR
(monitoring, consultation with federal
land managers, etc.) for each state in an
individual notice at or after the time of
the final rule for this action.
III. What is the background for the
EPA’s proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
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
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust), and their
precursors (e.g., SO2, 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 and
alters the color of scenes, and reduces
the distance at which one can see a
scene. PM2.5 can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans
and contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from 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 6 in many
mandatory Class I federal areas 7 in the
6 Visual range is the greatest distance at which a
dark object can be viewed against the sky.
7 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
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
Continued
30DEP1
82222
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
western United States is about 60–100
miles, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist
without anthropogenic air pollution. In
most of the eastern Class I areas of the
United States, the average visual range
is less than 20 miles, or about one-fifth
of the visual range that would exist
under estimated natural conditions. 64
FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for
Addressing Regional Haze
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 which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.’’ On December
2, 1980, the 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’’. 45 FR 80084. These
regulations represented the first phase
in addressing visibility impairment. The
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. The EPA promulgated the RHR
to address regional haze on July 1, 1999
(64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to
integrate into the regulation provisions
addressing regional haze impairment
and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA’s
visibility protection regulations at 40
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of
Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR
69122 (November 30, 1979). 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.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
CFR 51.300–309. The requirement to
submit a regional haze SIP applies to all
50 states, the District of Columbia and
the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b)
requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
Section 169A of the CAA and the
EPA’s implementing regulations require
states to establish long-term strategies
for making reasonable progress towards
the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary
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 8 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology’’ as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such
‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART, as described
below.
C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART
1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility
Progress of an Alternative Program to
BART
Criteria for determining if an
alternative measure achieves greater
reasonable progress than source-specific
BART are set out in the RHR at
§ 51.308(e)(3). The ‘‘better-than-BART’’
test may be satisfied as follows: If the
distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under
BART, and the alternative measure
results in greater emission reductions,
then the alternative measure may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress. If the distribution of emissions
is significantly different, then states are
directed to conduct an air quality
modeling study to determine differences
in visibility between BART and the
alternative program for each impacted
Class I area for the worst and best 20
8 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
percent of days.9 The two-pronged
visibility test would demonstrate
‘‘greater reasonable progress’’ under the
alternative program if both of the
following criteria are met:
—Visibility does not decline in any
Class I area,10 and
—There is an overall improvement in
visibility, determined by comparing
the average differences between BART
and the alternative over all affected
Class I areas.
The EPA’s authority to establish nonBART alternatives has been judicially
challenged and upheld twice, firmly
establishing that the CAA allows states
to substitute other programs for BART
where the alternative achieves greater
progress. In the first case, the court
affirmed our interpretation of CAA
169A(b)(2) as allowing for alternatives
to BART where those alternatives will
result in greater reasonable progress
than BART. Center for Energy and
Economic Development v. EPA, 398 f.3d
653, 660 (DC Cir. 2005) (‘‘CEED’’)
(finding reasonable the EPA’s
interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2)
as requiring BART only as necessary to
make reasonable progress). In the
second case, Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Cir.
2006), the court found EPA’s twopronged visibility test to be a
‘‘reasonable notion of reasonable
progress’’ and upheld our determination
that states could rely on CAIR, as
discussed below, as an alternative
program to BART for EGUs in the CAIRaffected states.
2. What is the relationship between
BART and CAIR?
In May 2005, the EPA published
CAIR, which required 28 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions
of SO2 and NOX that significantly
contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the 1997 national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for fine particulates and/or ozone in any
downwind state. The CAIR established
emission budgets for SO2 and NOX for
states that contribute significantly to
nonattainment in downwind states and
required the significantly contributing
states to submit SIP revisions that
implemented these budgets. Because
9 While the RHR directs the state to conduct the
air quality modeling study, as described in section
III.C.2, the EPA itself conducted such a study for
CAIR and through a notice-and-comment
rulemaking codified the conclusion that the stated
criteria were met by adding specific provisions
allowing the use of CAIR in lieu of source-specific
BART.
10 As explained in section IV.A., the ‘‘decline’’ is
relative to modeled future baseline visibility
conditions in the absence of any BART or
alternative program control requirements.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
such SIP revisions were already
overdue, CAIR also promulgated FIPs
for the affected states establishing a capand-trade program for EGUs with opt-in
provisions for other sources. States had
the flexibility to subsequently adopt SIP
revisions mirroring CAIR requirements
or otherwise providing emission
reductions sufficient to address
interference with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS in other
states. Many affected states adopted
CAIR-mirroring SIPs, while others chose
to remain under CAIR FIPs.
As noted in Section III.C.1, the RHR
allows states to implement an
alternative program in lieu of BART so
long as the alternative program has been
demonstrated to achieve greater
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. The
EPA made just such a demonstration for
CAIR in revisions to the regional haze
program made in 2005. 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005). In those revisions, we
amended our regulations to provide that
states participating in the CAIR cap-andtrade program under 40 CFR part 96
pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
or states that remain subject to the CAIR
FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need not require
affected BART-eligible EGUs to install,
operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4).
As a result of our determination that
CAIR was ‘‘better-than-BART,’’ a
number of states in the CAIR region,
fully consistent with our regulations,
designed their regional haze
implementation plans to rely on the
CAIR cap-and-trade program as an
alternative to BART for EGU emissions
of SO2 and NOX. These states also relied
on CAIR as an element of a long-term
strategy for achieving their reasonable
progress goals.
3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for
State Regional Haze Implementation
Plans
Following our determination in 2005
that CAIR was ‘‘better-than-BART’’ and
the upholding of this determination by
the court in 2006, the DC Circuit Court
ruled on several petitions for review
challenging CAIR on various grounds.
As a result of this litigation, the DC
Circuit Court remanded CAIR to the
EPA, but later decided not to vacate the
rule.11 The court thereby left CAIR and
CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in order to
‘‘temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR’’
until the EPA replaced it with a rule
consistent with the court’s opinion. 550
11 See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896;
modified by 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
F.3d at 1178. The EPA replaced CAIR
with the Transport Rule on August 8,
2011.12 The Transport Rule will take
effect on January 1, 2012. The CAIR and
the CAIR FIPs will remain in place to
address emissions through the end of
the 2011 control periods.
Many states relied on CAIR as an
alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX for
subject EGUs, as allowed under the
BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
These states also relied on the
improvement in visibility expected to
result from controls planned or already
installed on sources in order to meet
CAIR provisions in developing their
long-term visibility strategy. In addition,
many states relied upon their own CAIR
SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their states as
legal justification for these planned
controls and consequently did not
include separate enforceable measures
in their long-term strategies (a required
element of a regional haze SIP
submission) to ensure these EGU
reductions. These states also submitted
demonstrations showing that no
additional controls on EGUs beyond
CAIR would be reasonable for the first
10-year implementation period of the
regional haze program.
Since states in the CAIR-affected
region have based a number of required
elements of their regional haze programs
on CAIR, which has now been replaced
by the Transport Rule, we cannot fully
approve regional haze SIP revisions that
have relied on CAIR for emission
reduction measures. To date, we have
proposed limited disapprovals for some
states whose regional haze SIP revisions
rely on CAIR (for example, for the State
of Tennessee, 76 FR 33662 (June 9,
2011)). We intend to take final action on
those proposed limited disapprovals of
SIPs when this action is finalized.
However, there are other states whose
regional haze SIP relied on CAIR but for
which the EPA has not yet proposed to
take action. In this action we are
proposing a limited disapproval of the
regional haze SIPs that have been
submitted by Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and
Texas. These states relied on CAIR
requirements to satisfy both the BART
requirement and the requirement for a
long-term strategy sufficient to achieve
the state-adopted reasonable progress
goals, and they are now covered by the
Transport Rule requirements.
12 See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82223
4. The Transport Rule and Regional
Haze State Implementation Plans
The Transport Rule sunsets CAIR and
the CAIR FIPs for control periods in
2012 and beyond. The Transport Rule
requires 28 states in the eastern half of
the United States to significantly
improve air quality by reducing EGU
SO2 and NOX emissions that cross state
lines and contribute to ground-level
ozone and/or fine particle pollution in
other states. The rule allows air-qualityassured allowance trading among
covered sources, utilizing an allowance
market infrastructure modeled after
existing allowance trading programs.
The Transport Rule allows sources to
trade emissions allowances with other
sources in the same or different states,
while firmly constraining any emissions
shifting that may occur by establishing
an emission ceiling for each state.
In developing the Transport Rule, we
did not conduct any technical analysis
to determine whether compliance with
the Transport Rule would satisfy
regional haze BART-related
requirements. Accordingly, in the final
Transport Rule, the EPA did not make
a determination or establish any
presumption that compliance with the
Transport Rule would satisfy BARTrelated requirements for EGUs. We have
now completed such a technical
analysis and it is the basis of this action
in which we are proposing to find that
in affected mandatory Class I federal
areas, the Transport Rule achieves
greater reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions than sourcespecific BART. Specifically, we are
proposing that participation by EGUs in
the Transport Rule trading program set
out in 40 CFR part 97 subparts
AAAAA–DDDDD meets the
requirements of an alternative program
as prescribed in the RHR at
§ 51.308(e)(3), and we are proposing to
revise the regional haze regulations at
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) accordingly. The
EPA invites comments on these
proposed revisions.
The proposed determination in this
action that participation in the
Transport Rule trading program may
substitute for BART applies only to
EGUs in the states in the Transport Rule
region and only to the pollutants subject
to the requirements of the Transport
Rule (i.e., SO2 and/or NOX). BART for
emissions of other visibility impairing
pollutants (e.g., primary PM2.5, NH3 or
VOC) must still be evaluated according
to the RHR Guidelines. Non-EGU
sources also remain subject to
requirements of the RHR.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82224
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Under the proposed revision to this
section, a state in the Transport Rule
region whose EGUs are subject to the
requirements of the Transport Rule
trading program only for annual NOX or
ozone season NOX would be allowed to
rely on our proposed determination that
the Transport Rule makes greater
reasonable progress than source-specific
BART for NOX. Such a state would still
need to address BART for SO2 and other
visibility impairing pollutants.
In this action we are also proposing a
FIP for those Transport Rule states for
which we already have or now are
proposing a limited disapproval due to
the termination of CAIR. For these
states, the proposed FIP would replace
reliance on the CAIR requirements with
reliance on the Transport Rule as an
alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX
emissions from EGUs and as a long-term
strategy measure.
We are proposing to leave unchanged
the final sentence of section 51.308(e)(4)
in the regional haze regulations. This
language allows a state to address
BART, when it is required based on
reasonable attribution of visibility
impairment at a Class I area to a
particular source by a federal land
management agency, by including a
geographic enhancement in its SIP.13
For example, a geographic enhancement
in the form of adjusted allocations at a
BART-subject source might take the
place of source-specific emission rate
limits. Use of a geographic enhancement
in the context of reasonable attribution
of visibility impairment at a Class I area
will be addressed in separate EPA or
state actions on a case-by-case basis in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.302.
IV. Proposed Determination That the
Transport Rule Is an Approvable
Alternative to BART
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test
As described in section III.C.1, the
two-pronged test for determining if an
alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress than source-specific
BART is set out in the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). The underlying purpose of
both prongs of the test is to assess
13 Under section 51.302, the affected federal land
manager may certify that there exists reasonably
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) in a
mandatory Class I federal area. This certification is
an extraordinary measure to address localized
impacts due to a specific source or sources. The
EPA and federal land managers will work together
regarding the review of SIPs (or the development of
FIPs) to respond to a RAVI certification when one
is made, within the better-than-BART construct for
regional haze and in accordance with section
51.302 and section 51.308(e)(4). States may also
include in their SIPs provisions applicable to a
specific source even if no federal land management
agency has made such a reasonable attribution.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
whether visibility conditions at Class I
areas would be better with the
alternative program in place than they
would without it. The first prong
ensures that the alternative program will
not cause a decline in visibility at any
affected Class I area. It addresses the
possibility that the alternative program
might cause local changes in emissions
that could result in localized visibility
degradation. The second prong ensures
that the program results in
improvements in average visibility
across all affected Class I areas as
compared to adopting source-specific
BART. Together, these tests ensure that
the alternative program provides for
greater reasonable progress than would
source-specific BART.
In the case of the Transport Rule as an
alternative to source-specific BART, the
logical reference point for the first prong
is visibility conditions as they are
expected to be at the time the Transport
Rule is implemented but in the absence
of BART. This ensures that the
predicted visibility differences are due
to the Transport Rule alternative and
not to other extrinsic factors. For
example, if large increases in wildfires
are expected, due to accumulation of
fuel from past forest management
practices, a degradation of visibility
from current conditions may be
expected. It would be irrational to
disapprove an alternative program as
not meeting the first prong of the test
because of a modeled degradation from
current conditions, where that
degradation is actually anticipated
because of smoke from wildfires—
sources which are not subject to the
CAA BART provisions. By comparing
the Transport Rule alternative to future
projected baseline conditions without
any BART program, such extrinsic
variables are accounted for. The future
projected baseline also accounts for
other non-Transport Rule constraints on
EGU emissions including the Acid Rain
Program, the NOX SIP Call, New Source
Performance Standards, Title V permits,
any state laws and consent order
requiring emission reductions, and any
other permanent and enforceable
binding reduction commitments. We are
thus able to ascertain (to the extent
possible where future projections are
concerned) whether visibility under the
alternative would decline at any
affected Class I area, all other things
being equal. Therefore, in applying the
first prong of the test to the Transport
Rule, we used a future (2014) projected
baseline.14 Similarly, in applying the
14 The 2014 baseline modeling for this analysis is
identical to the Transport Rule 2014 baseline. The
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
second prong of the test, we assumed
identical future conditions (the same as
in the future 2014 baseline case) for
non-EGU sources for both the sourcespecific BART scenario and the
Transport Rule scenario.
To satisfy each prong of the test, we
examined visibility differences on both
the worst and best 20 percent of days.
Thus, under the first prong, visibility
must not decline at any affected Class I
area on either the best 20 percent or the
worst 20 percent days as a result of
implementing the Transport Rule. In
addition, under the second prong, the
20 percent best and 20 percent worst
days should be considered in
determining whether the Transport Rule
produces greater average improvement
than source-specific BART over all
affected Class I areas.
B. Identification of Affected Class I
Areas
In applying the two-pronged test to
the Transport Rule, we first identified
the Class I areas in the 48 contiguous
states with sufficiently complete
monitoring data available to support the
analysis.15 There were 140 such Class I
areas represented by 96 IMPROVE
monitors; nine Class I areas were
excluded that did not have sufficient
historical ambient data from the
IMPROVE monitoring program to
support the technical analysis.16 After
identifying these areas we then
considered two possible approaches we
could use to identify which of these
areas are ‘‘affected’’ Class I areas in
terms of the potential effect of the
Transport Rule as an alternative control
program to source-specific BART. In the
first approach, we identified as affected
Class I areas 60 mandatory Class I
Federal areas represented by 46
IMPROVE monitors located in 37
complete states and four partial states
that are contained in the eastern portion
2014 baseline does not include the Transport Rule,
BART, or CAIR control programs.
15 The modeling used a 2005 base case projected
to a 2014 future year. The modeling days for the
analysis were based on the observed 20 percent best
and 20 percent worst days from 2005 at each
IMPROVE site. Therefore, the analysis could not be
completed for IMPROVE sites that did not have
complete ambient data for 2005.
16 In the Regional Haze Program, there are 110
ambient monitoring sites which represent 155 Class
I areas. Therefore, some monitors represent air
quality at more than one Class I area. See Guidance
for Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule,
U.S. EPA, EPA–454/B–03–004, September 2003,
which is found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/
memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. In our analysis we
calculated visibility changes at each individual
Class I area. Therefore, some IMPROVE monitors
are counted more than once in the averaging of the
visibility data. This does not affect the proposed
finding that the Transport Rule is better than
source-specific BART.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
of the Transport Rule modeling
domain.17 The second approach we
considered was a national approach in
which visibility impacts on 140 Class I
areas across the 48 contiguous states
were evaluated.
In the Transport Rule, the
determination of states that contribute
significantly to downwind
nonattainment and/or maintenance
focused on the 37 states that are fully
contained in this eastern modeling
domain. The eastern modeling domain
also includes large parts of Montana,
Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.
In the Transport Rule, EPA did not
determine that Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado, New Mexico or the six New
England states were contributing to
violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS or
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, or
interfering with maintenance in
downwind states and therefore they are
not included in the Transport Rule
program.18 However, we included Class
I areas located in these non-Transport
Rule states and partial states in the first
approach for identifying ‘‘affected
areas’’. It is conceivable that because of
proximity, emissions from the Transport
Rule states could impact any of the
Class I areas in the eastern Transport
Rule modeling domain. Specifically, in
this first approach for identifying
‘‘affected areas’’ in the Transport Rule
region, we examined impacts on 27
Class I areas located within the
Transport Rule states and 33 additional
Class I areas located in non-Transport
Rule states but within the eastern
Transport Rule modeling domain, for a
total of 60 Class I areas.
The eastern Transport Rule modeling
domain lies within a larger modeling
domain which covers the lower 48
states and adjacent portions of Canada
and Mexico. In the Transport Rule, the
results obtained with this national
domain were used to calculate boundary
conditions for the eastern Transport
Rule region. The EPA did not use the
national domain to investigate interstate
contributions to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance, in part
because the air quality model structure
for the national domain is less suitable
for that type of use.19 In the second
17 The ‘‘eastern’’ Transport Rule modeling grid
used a horizontal resolution of 12 kilometers (km).
18 The Transport Rule determined that the six
New England states did not contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in
downwind states. The Transport Rule did not make
a determination whether Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado, and New Mexico contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in
neighboring states.
19 The eastern modeling domain used a 12 km
grid size, while the national modeling domain used
a 36 km grid size. See Air Quality Modeling Final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
approach to identifying which areas are
‘‘affected’’ Class I areas, we used data
from the larger domain to estimate
potential visibility impacts on Class I
areas located to the west of the
Transport Rule modeling region
boundary. The additional 80 Class I
areas under this national approach are
in states or part of states that were not
part of the eastern modeling domain for
the Transport Rule, but were part of the
western modeling domain.20 In this
approach, the eastern domain 12 km
modeling results were used to calculate
visibility changes in the 60 eastern Class
I areas and the national domain 36 km
modeling results were used to calculate
visibility changes in the 80 western
Class I areas. Consideration of this
national region would encompass the
possibility that the Transport Rule
might have the effect of increasing EGU
emissions in the most western portion
of the United States due to shifts in
electricity generation or other market
effects. In total, the national domain
includes 140 Class I areas (including the
60 contained within the Transport Rule
region).
We request comment on whether the
‘‘affected Class I areas’’ should be
considered to be the 60 Class I areas
located in the Transport Rule eastern
modeling domain, the larger set of 140
Class I areas in the larger national
domain, or some other set. We note that
given the modeling results presented in
section VI.E, the choice between the 60
Class I areas or the 140 Class I areas
does not affect our proposed conclusion
that both prongs of the two-prong test
are met.
C. Scenarios Examined
The Transport Rule requires 28 states
in the eastern half of the United States
to reduce EGU SO2 and NOX emissions
that cross state lines and contribute to
ground-level ozone and fine particle
pollution in other states. BART, on the
other hand, is applicable nationwide
and covers 26 industrial categories,
including EGUs, of a certain vintage. In
our comparison, we sought to determine
whether the Transport Rule cap-andtrade program for EGUs will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would
BART for EGUs only. Therefore, we
examined two relevant control
scenarios. The first control scenario
examined SO2 and NOX emissions from
all EGUs nationwide after the
Rule Technical Support Document, U.S. EPA, June
2011, which is found at: https://www.epa.gov/
airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
20 See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011, which is
found at: https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/
AQModeling.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82225
application of BART controls to all
BART-eligible EGUs (‘‘Nationwide
BART’’). In the second scenario, EGU
SO2 and NOX emissions reductions
attributable to the Transport Rule were
applied in the Transport Rule region
and BART controls were applied to all
BART-eligible EGUS outside the
Transport Rule region (‘‘Transport Rule
+ BART-elsewhere’’). The latter scenario
reflects the fact that source-specific
BART would remain a regional haze SIP
element outside the Transport Rule
region. In order to more accurately
project the Transport Rule emissions, it
is necessary to assume EGU BART
controls outside the Transport Rule
region to account for potential load and
emission shifting among EGUs.
For both the ‘‘Nationwide BART’’
scenario and the ‘‘Transport Rule +
BART-elsewhere’’ scenario, we modeled
the presumptive EGU BART limits for
SO2 and NOX emission rates as specified
in the BART Guidelines (Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the
Regional Haze Rule, 70 FR 39104, July
6, 2005), unless an actual emission rate
at a given unit with existing controls is
lower. In the latter case, we modeled the
lower emission rates. In addition, we
modeled the impacts of BART using
stringent assumptions regarding the
EGUs (or specific units at EGUs) that
would be subject to BART. Specifically,
we assumed that all BART-eligible
EGUs were actually subject to BART
requirements. We also assumed that
presumptive BART limits would be
applied to much smaller units. In this
analysis we assumed the threshold for
BART-eligibility was 100 megawatts
(MW) for SO2 and 25 MW for NOX and
did not eliminate any sources based on
their annual total emissions. (By
comparison, the RHR BART Guidelines
only apply presumptive limits to EGUs
having a total generating capacity of 750
MW and exempt BART-eligible units
with the potential to emit less than 40
tons per year of either SO2 or NOX.)
The RHR BART Guidelines specify
presumptive SO2 BART limits for an
EGU with an existing scrubber as 95
percent scrubber control efficiency or
0.15 pounds per million Btu (lbs/
MMBtu). We used the National Electric
Energy Data System (NEEDS), an EPA
database of existing and plannedcommitted EGUs, to identify which
BART-eligible units have existing
scrubbers.21 The NEEDS also contains
information on scrubber efficiency and
emission rates. For scrubbed BART21 See The NEEDS User Guide: https://
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/
CSAPR/docs/Guide_to_NEEDSv410.pdf which is
found at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/
epa-ipm/transport.html.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82226
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
eligible units, we based our BART
emission rate on a comparison of the
emission rate listed for that unit in
NEEDS to the presumptive SO2
emission rate. That is, if the unit has at
least a 95 percent efficient scrubber, the
emission rate being achieved at that
control efficiency was modeled for that
unit even if the emission rate was higher
than 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. Conversely, if an
emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu or
lower is being achieved, we modeled
that emission rate for the unit, even if
the scrubber is less than 95 percent
efficient. For BART-eligible units
without existing scrubbers, we modeled
an emission rate that reflected 95
percent control based on a new
installation of a highly efficient
scrubber.
The RHR BART Guidelines specify
presumptive limits for NOX based on
coal type and boiler configuration. The
BART guidelines also specify that
existing NOX controls must be operated
year round. For the source-specific
‘‘Nationwide BART’’ scenario and for
the ‘‘elsewhere’’ EGUs in the ‘‘Transport
Rule + BART-elsewhere’’ scenario, we
assumed that any BART-subject unit
with existing NOX controls in the future
baseline case would retain at least those
controls and would be required to
operate them year round. If the existing
NOX controls in the future baseline case
did not meet the presumptive BART
limits (with the modifications about
applicability as described above), we
assumed installation of post-combustion
controls that would meet the BART
guidelines with year round operation. In
the ‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
scenario, there are 5 states that are
subject to the Transport Rule
requirements during the ozone season
only.22 For these states, NOX controls
were assumed to operate only during
ozone season as required by the
Transport Rule. The RHR BART
Guidelines also specify presumptive
limits for NOX based on coal type and
boiler configuration. Table 1
summarizes the NOX emission limits we
applied to BART-eligible units of 25
MW or greater. For units firing a coal
blend, which the BART Guidelines do
not address, we calculated a weighted
presumptive NOX limit based on the
percentage of each coal type fired.
TABLE 1—BART PRESUMPTIVE NOX LIMITS BY BOILER CONFIGURATION AND COAL TYPE
[lbs/MMBtu]
Bituminous
Dry bottom wall-fired ..................................................................................................
Tangential-fired ..........................................................................................................
Cell burners ...............................................................................................................
Dry turbo-fired ............................................................................................................
Wet bottom tangential-fired .......................................................................................
Cyclone ......................................................................................................................
Subbituminous
0.39
0.28
0.40
0.32
0.62
0.10
0.23
0.15
0.45
0.23
[*]
0.10
Lignite
0.29
0.17
[*]
[*]
[*]
0.10
* Not applicable.
Certain EGUs in the analysis were
constrained by emission limits other
than presumptive limits due to a
proposed or final regional haze SIP, a
proposed or final regional haze FIP, a
final consent decree, or state rules.
These units and their emission limits
are detailed in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed rule.
(See Technical Support Document for
Demonstration of the Transport Rule as
a BART Alternative, Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2011–0729.)
D. Emission Projections
To estimate emissions expected from
the scenarios described in section IV.C,
we used the Integrated Planning Model
(IPM). The IPM is a multi-regional,
dynamic, deterministic linear
programming model of the electric
power sector. It is used extensively by
the EPA to support regulatory activities.
The IPM provides forecasts of least-cost
capacity expansion, electricity dispatch,
and emission control strategies for
meeting electricity demand subject to
environmental, transmission, dispatch,
and reliability constraints. The IPM was
used in this case to evaluate the
emissions impacts of the described
scenarios limiting the emissions of SO2
and NOX from EGUs. This analysis used
the most recently updated IPM platform
which is documented at https://www.
epa.gov/crossstaterule/.23 Table 2
presents the annual emissions for each
policy scenario as projected by the IPM.
As shown by the numbers in the far
right column, ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ achieved greater emission
reductions nationwide 24 for both
pollutants than source-specific
‘‘Nationwide BART’’ alone.
TABLE 2—EGU SO2 AND NOX ANNUAL EMISSIONS AS PROJECTED BY IPM
[In thousands of tons per year]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2014 Base Case
EGU emissions
Nationwide SO2 .......................................................................
Nationwide NOX .......................................................................
22 States subject to the Transport Rule
requirements during the ozone season only are
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Florida.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
2014 ‘‘Nationwide
BART’’
7,160
1,946
3,820
1,798
23 Extensive documentation of the IPM platform
may be found at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2014 ‘‘Transport
Rule + BARTelsewhere’’
2,918
1,756
Additional reduction from ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ (‘‘Nationwide BART’’
minus ‘‘Transport
Rule + BARTelsewhere’’)
902
42
24 In the context of this action, when we refer to
nationwide emissions or a nationwide analysis, we
are referring to the contiguous 48 states.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The IPM projections of NOX and SO2
emissions from EGUs for the ‘‘Transport
Rule + BART-elsewhere’’ control
scenario summarized on an annual basis
in Table 2, which were used to arrive at
the modeling results presented in
section VI.E, are based on the state
budgets prescribed in the final
Transport Rule published on August 8,
2011, and the supplemental proposal
finalized on December 15, 2011.25 On
October 14, 2011, the EPA issued a
proposed notice that would increase
NOX and SO2 budgets for certain states
in accordance with revisions to certain
unit-level input data. 76 FR 63860. Even
if these proposed increases to state
budgets are finalized, emissions of both
NOX and SO2 in the Transport Rule
states in the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ control scenario will still be
substantially below emissions in the
‘‘Base Case’’ scenario. Therefore, we
believe that the modeling results in
section VI.E comparing these two
scenarios based on the emissions from
the final Transport Rule, showing that
the first prong of the better-than-BART
test is satisfied, are also sufficient for
determining that the Transport Rule as
modified by the proposed increases in
the state budgets also would meet the
first prong.
Also, even if the proposed increases
to state budgets are finalized, the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
control scenario is still projected to
result in about 26,000 tons more NOX
emission reductions than ‘‘Nationwide
BART’’ and about 821,000 tons more
SO2 emission reductions than
‘‘Nationwide BART.’’ We believe the
changes in the emissions differences
between these two scenarios that would
result if the proposed increases in state
budgets are finalized are unlikely to
affect the determination of whether
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
provides greater visibility improvement
than ‘‘Nationwide BART’’ averaged
across all affected Class I areas, as
assessed by the second prong of twopronged test. A sensitivity analysis that
examines the impact of the proposed
state budget increases on visibility
improvement is presented in Appendix
C of the TSD. We request comment on
this aspect of our proposed
determination.
25 See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The ozone
season state budgets for the states affected by the
supplemental proposal finalized on December 15,
2011, are included in the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ control scenario. (The ozone season
budget for Kansas was not finalized on December
15, 2011.)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
E. Air Quality Modeling Results
To assess the air quality metrics that
are part of the two–pronged test, we
used the IPM emission projections
summarized in Table 2 as inputs to an
air quality model to determine the
impact of ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ and ‘‘Nationwide BART’’
controls on visibility in the affected
Class I areas. To project air quality
impacts we used the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extension (CAMx)
version 5.3. The air quality modeling
analysis and related analyses to project
visibility improvement are described in
more detail in the TSD for the Transport
Rule.26 The base year meteorology used
in the CAMx modeling was 2005. The
base year IMPROVE ambient monitoring
data for the years 2003–2007 were used
to project visibility to 2014 and to
compare the visibility improvements
from the two control scenarios. The
2003–2007 IMPROVE data were used
because these are the 5 years of data
which straddle the base 2005 modeling
year. The post-processing calculations
for visibility are consistent with the
RHR tracking progress guidance 27 and
the regional haze air quality modeling
guidance.28 The visibility projections
for each Class I area are presented in the
air quality modeling TSD.29
The cornerstone of our modeling
process was the 2014 ‘‘Base Case’’
modeling scenario, which contains
emissions for 2014 based on predicted
growth and existing emissions controls.
We used model-predicted changes in
visibility impairment along with the
observed base year visibility values to
estimate future visibility impairment at
each Class I area. We applied the
relative predicted change in visibility
(expressed as a percent) from the model,
due to emissions changes, to the base
year visibility values to estimate future
visibility. The projected visibility values
were based on emissions changes
between the 2005 base year inventory
and the 2014 inventory. After we
established the future year 2014 ‘‘Base
26 See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical
Support Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011, which is
found at: https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/
AQModeling.pdf.
27 See Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the
Regional Haze Rule, U.S. EPA, EPA–454/B–03–004,
September 2003, which is found at: https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf.
28 See Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
U.S. EPA, EPA–454/B–07–002, April 2007, which is
found at: https://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/
guide/final-03-p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf.
29 See Technical Support Document for
Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART
Alternative, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82227
Case’’ visibility values, we calculated
estimated visibility improvements at
each Class I area by modeling the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
control strategy as well as the
‘‘Nationwide BART’’ strategy in 2014.
We did two separate analyses to
assess the potential visibility impacts of
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
and ‘‘Nationwide BART’’ controls on 60
Class I areas in the Transport Rule
region and on 140 Class I areas in the
contiguous 48 states (referred to as the
national region). For both visibility
scenarios we quantified the visibility
impacts on the 20 percent best and 20
percent worst visibility days for the
2014 future-year base case, the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
scenario, and the ‘‘Nationwide BART’’
control scenario.
Under the first prong of the test,
visibility cannot degrade at any affected
Class I area. To determine if ‘‘Transport
Rule + BART-elsewhere’’ resulted in
degradation of visibility at any affected
Class I area, we compared the visibility
impacts of ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ to base case 2014 visibility
conditions. As described in detail in the
TSD for this action, the ‘‘Transport Rule
+ BART-elsewhere’’ alternative passed
this first prong in the Transport Rule
region by not causing visibility
degradation at any of the 60 affected
Class I areas in the eastern Transport
Rule modeling domain (i.e., when using
the first approach to identifying affected
areas), on either the 20 percent best or
the 20 percent worst days. In the
national region (i.e., when using the
second approach to identifying affected
areas), the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ alternative was also
predicted to not cause visibility
degradation at any affected Class I area
on either the 20 percent best or the 20
percent worst days, with a few
exceptions. The exceptions were
predicted average degradations of 0.23,
0.23, and 0.26 deciviews, respectively,
at Pine Mountain Wilderness, Arizona,
Mazatzal Wilderness, Arizona, and
Saguaro National Park, Arizona, on the
20 percent worst days.30 There was also
a predicted degradation of 0.05
deciviews on the 20 percent best days
at Bryce Canyon National Park in
Utah.31 While not part of the twopronged test, we also compared the
30 The results for Pine Mountain and Mazatzal
were the same because they are both represented by
the same IMPROVE monitoring site (Ike’s Backbone,
IKBA).
31 Changes in visibility were rounded to the
nearest 0.1 deciviews. Therefore, any changes that
were less than 0.05 were rounded down and treated
as zero. Any changes that were 0.05 or greater were
rounded up and treated as potential degradation.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82228
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
baseline scenario to the ‘‘Nationwide
BART’’ scenario. The analysis of the
national region under the ‘‘Nationwide
BART’’ control scenario projected a
degradation of 0.23 deciviews on the 20
percent worst days at Pine Mountain
Wilderness and Mazatzal Wilderness
(the same as the ‘‘Transport Rule +
BART-elsewhere’’ result just noted).
The fact that unexpected degradations
at some western Class I areas were
predicted for the ‘‘Nationwide BART’’
scenario as well as the ‘‘Transport Rule
+ BART-elsewhere’’ scenario led us to
investigate the CAMx modeling output
in more detail.32 Based on that
investigation, we consider the visibility
projections for the western portion of
the national modeling domain that
indicate potential degradation in four
western Class I areas under the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
scenario compared to the ‘‘Base Case’’
scenario to be anomalous results that do
not indicate the true effects that the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
scenario (or the ‘‘Nationwide BART’’
scenario) will have on visibility in these
areas.
In the CAMx output for 36 km grid
cells in the vicinity of these four Class
I areas, we observed that modeled
concentrations of nitrate were very low
on the 20 percent worst days (and 20
percent best days at Bryce Canyon) in
both the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ case and the ‘‘Nationwide
BART’’ case. The modeled nitrate
concentrations in these cases ranged
from 0.001 to 0.004 micrograms per
cubic meter (mg/m3), averaged across the
20 percent worst or best days in 2005.
Notably, the modeled concentrations
were generally a small fraction of
monitored ambient nitrate
concentrations at the IMPROVE sites for
the four Class I areas. In the cases where
degradation was calculated, a very small
increase in modeled nitrate was
observed on several of the worst or best
modeled days. This lead to a relatively
large modeled percent increase in
nitrate. As an example, on the worst
days at Pine Mountain and Mazatzal,
the modeled nitrate concentration
increased from 0.001 mg/m3 in the 2014
base case to 0.002 mg/m3 in the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
case.
32 Appendix B of the TSD in the docket for this
action provides more information on this aspect of
the CAMx modeling results.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
Further examination of the days when
these nitrate increases occur reveals a
somewhat random pattern of very small
increases and decreases that appear
unrelated to EGU emissions changes.
While IPM predicts modestly higher
NOX emissions in some nearby states
under the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ scenario, the checkerboard
pattern of nitrate differences in Arizona
and southern Utah show no logical
connection to these modestly higher
emissions. This nitrate modeling issue
appears similar to a previously noted
nitrate chemistry stability issue when
modeled concentrations are very small
and relative humidity is very low.33
Thus, we conclude that these positive
and negative differences between very
low nitrate concentrations are a
modeling artifact attributable to the
nitrate physics in CAMx for the
conditions that apply in this geographic
area on these days, and are not
reasonable predictors of the true relative
effects on visibility of the emission
control scenarios.
To illustrate how sensitive the
predictions of degradation are to highly
variable results on particular days, if the
one day of the 20 percent worst or best
days with the largest increase in
modeled nitrate concentration at each
site is removed from consideration for
that site, the apparent degradations no
longer occur. We also note that although
the increases in modeled nitrate
concentrations are very small (ranging
between 0.01 and 0.04 mg/m3 for the one
day at each site just mentioned), the
‘‘relative response factor’’ method we
used to combine CAMx output
(representing future conditions) with
IMPROVE monitoring data (representing
historical conditions) greatly magnified
these small increases in nitrate
concentrations. The small increases in
modeled nitrate are converted to
relatively large percent increases in
nitrate and then multiplied by actual
ambient nitrate concentrations in the
base period that are far higher than the
concentrations predicted by CAMx.
Thus, very small differences in
concentrations of nitrate in the CAMx
output that would have had no effect on
calculated deciview values if used
directly, nevertheless result in apparent
degradations on the order of 0.1 to 0.26
deciviews after being combined with
33 Appendix B of the TSD in the docket for this
action provides more information on this issue.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IMPROVE data. The EPA is
investigating possible modifications to
the software used to post-process CAMx
output. These possible revisions are
aimed at avoiding potentially
misleading results in situations such as
the one observed near these western
Class I areas. We seek comment on an
alternate methodology described in
Appendix B of the TSD that attempts to
address the effects of very low nitrate
concentrations on visibility results.
After considering the results of the
first prong of the visibility test and
examining the CAMx output in more
detail as described above, we are
confident that no degradation in the
four western Class I areas will result
from implementation of the Transport
Rule trading programs in the eastern
U.S. Consequently, we are proposing
that the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ control scenario passes the
first prong of the visibility test
considering affected Class I areas
located in both the Transport Rule
region (first approach) and the national
region (second approach). Details on the
individual Class I area calculations can
be found in the air quality modeling
TSD.
The second prong of the test assesses
whether the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ scenario results in greater
average visibility improvement at
affected Class I areas compared to the
‘‘Nationwide BART’’ scenario. To
determine if ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ achieved greater average
visibility improvement, we compared
the visibility impacts of ‘‘Transport Rule
+ BART-elsewhere’’ at the Class I areas
to visibility impacts predicted at these
same areas after implementation of
‘‘Nationwide BART’’. In the Transport
Rule region (first approach) and the
national region (second approach), the
average visibility improvement of the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
alternative was greater than
‘‘Nationwide BART’’ on both the 20
percent best and 20 percent worst days.
Thus, the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ alternative measure passed
the second prong of the test, regardless
of which way affected Class I areas are
identified. A summary of the results of
the second prong of the test for the
Transport Rule and national regions
under each control scenario is presented
in Table 3.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82229
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—AVERAGE VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT IN 2014 V. 2014 BASE CASE
[Deciviews]
‘‘Transport Rule +
BART-elsewhere’’
‘‘Nationwide BART’’
1.6
0.3
1.0
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.5
0.1
60 Class I Areas in the Eastern Transport Rule Modeling Domain:
20 percent Worst Days .....................................................................................................
20 percent Best Days .......................................................................................................
140 Class I Areas in the Western and Eastern Transport Rule Modeling Domains:
20 percent Worst Days .....................................................................................................
20 percent Best Days .......................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Proposed Amendment to the Regional
Haze Rule
V. Proposed Limited Disapproval of
Certain States’ Regional Haze SIPs
Based on our finding that the
‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’
control scenario passes the two-pronged
test, we are proposing to determine that
the Transport Rule trading programs
will provide greater progress towards
regional haze goals than source-specific
BART. This proposed determination
applies only to EGUs in the Transport
Rule trading programs and only for the
pollutants covered by the programs in
each state. Accordingly, we propose to
revise 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii)(4) by
essentially replacing the name of CAIR
with the name of the Transport Rule.
We are also proposing that a state that
chooses to meet the emission reduction
requirements of the Transport Rule by
submitting a complete SIP revision
substantively identical to the provisions
of the EPA trading program that is
approved as meeting the requirements
of section 52.38 and/or section 52.39
also need not require BART-eligible
EGUs in the state to install, operate, and
maintain BART for the pollutants
covered by such a trading program in
the state.
We are preserving the language in the
regional haze regulations at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4) that allows states to include
in their SIPs geographic enhancements
to the alternative program to
accommodate a situation where BART is
required based on reasonable attribution
of visibility impairment at a Class I area.
A number of the states for which we
are proposing a FIP had previously
failed to either submit a visibility SIP or
had failed to submit a SIP that could be
fully approved under the visibility
regulations issued in 1980. See 45 FR
80084 (December 2, 1980). The
proposed regulatory text is drafted to
take account of this and is not intended
to change the findings that have been
made in the past with respect to the
relevant states’ compliance with the
requirements of visibility regulations
found at 40 CFR 51.302–51.307.
In this action, we are proposing a
limited disapproval of the regional haze
SIPs that have been submitted by
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina and
Texas. These states, fully consistent
with the EPA’s regulations at the time,
relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy
the BART requirement and the
requirement for a long-term strategy
sufficient to achieve the state-adopted
reasonable progress goals.
We are not proposing to disapprove
the reasonable progress targets for 2018
that are an element of the long-term
strategies for these states. We made clear
in the RHR that the reasonable progress
goals are not mandatory standards in the
sense of there being consequences if
they are not met, because there are
inherent uncertainties in projecting
future emissions and resulting visibility
conditions. See 64 FR 35733. However,
to assess whether current
implementation strategies will be
sufficient to meet the reasonable
progress goals, the RHR requires a
midcourse review by each state and, if
necessary, a correction of the state’s
regional haze plan. See 40 CFR
52.308(g). We anticipate that since the
Transport Rule will result in greater
emission reductions overall than CAIR,
that the need for such corrections will
be unlikely. Based on the information
currently before us, we believe that the
substitution of the Transport Rule for
CAIR does not weaken any affected
state’s long-term strategy, but we will
assess the midcourse review of each
state’s SIP to ensure that this is so. We
intend to act on the reasonable progress
goals and long-term strategy (including
the Transport Rule) and other
requirements of the RHR (BART
determinations for non-EGU sources,
monitoring, consultation with federal
land managers, etc.) for each state in an
individual notice separately from the
final rule for this action. Those
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
individual notices will constitute the
final action (approval or disapproval) on
those other elements of the SIP.
The EPA has already proposed
limited disapproval of regional haze
SIPs that relied on CAIR that were
submitted by Kentucky, Tennessee,
Virginia and West Virginia. The
remedies for the limited disapprovals
previously proposed and those that are
proposed in this action are FIPs as
described in section VI.
VI. Proposed FIPs
In this action, we are proposing
partial regional haze FIPs for states for
which we already have or are now
proposing limited disapprovals because
of the termination of CAIR. These
limited FIPs would satisfy the BART
requirement and be a part of satisfying
the requirement for a long-term strategy
sufficient to achieve the state-adopted
reasonable progress goals. The FIPs
apply only to EGUs in the affected states
and only to pollutants covered by the
Transport Rule programs in those states.
For the reasons discussed in section V.,
the proposed FIPs do not alter states’
reasonable progress goals or replace
these goals.
The proposed FIPs replace reliance on
CAIR requirements with reliance on the
Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for SO2 and NOX emissions from
EGUs in the following states’ regional
haze SIPs: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana,
Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and West Virginia. The
proposed FIPs replace reliance on CAIR
requirements with reliance on the
Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for NOX emissions from EGUs in
the following states’ regional haze SIPs:
Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Given the requirements of the CAA to
promulgate a FIP after disapproving a
SIP in whole or in part (CAA section
110(c)(1)), we consider it appropriate at
this time to propose to issue FIPs to
address the noted deficiencies in these
states’ regional haze SIPs related to the
termination of CAIR and the
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82230
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
replacement of CAIR with the Transport
Rule. A state may choose to submit a
SIP or remain subject to this FIP. The
proposed regional haze FIPs rely on the
trading programs set out in the FIPs
promulgated by the EPA in August 2011
in the Transport Rule to limit the
interstate transport of NOX and SO2.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because
some may view it as raising novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Accordingly, the EPA submitted
this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any
changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this
action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action
does not include or require any
information collection.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
that is a small industrial entity as
defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards.
(See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) A small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not impose any
requirements on small entities. Rather,
this proposed rule would allow states to
avoid regulating EGUs in new ways
based on the current requirements of the
Transport Rule and as such does not
impose any new requirements on small
entities. We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538) for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. Therefore, this action
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
action merely interprets the statutory
requirements that apply to states in
preparing their SIPs and thus apply also
to FIPs.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action does
not impose any new mandates on state
or local governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between the
EPA and state and local governments,
the EPA is specifically soliciting
comments on this proposed rule from
state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2000). The rule does not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, since there are no BARTeligible EGU sources on tribal lands in
the Transport Rule region. In addition,
the CAA does not provide for the
inclusion of any tribal areas as
mandatory Class I federal areas; thus,
tribal areas are not subject to the
requirements of the RHR. Furthermore,
this proposed rule does not affect the
relationship or distribution of power
and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action. The EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this
proposed action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5–
501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This action is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not involve decisions on
environmental health or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
The EPA believes that the emissions
reductions from the strategies in this
rule will further improve air quality and
will further improve children’s health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy
because it does not establish
requirements that directly affect the
general public and the public and
private sectors. Rather, this proposed
rule would allow states to avoid
regulating EGUs in new ways based on
the current requirements of the
Transport Rule, and thus may avoid
adverse effects that conceivably might
result from such additional regulation of
EGUs by states.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
the EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the EPA
decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards. This rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA is not considering the use of
any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (EO) (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
When considering the possible
environmental justice impacts of this
proposed rule, it is important to
distinguish the set of scenarios on
which the better-than-BART analysis
described in this notice is based from
the set of possible future situations that
could come to pass based on the
outcome of this rulemaking. The
Transport Rule is in place and will
remain in place regardless of the
outcome of this rulemaking. If we
finalize the proposed rule, a regional
haze SIP or FIP for an affected state will
be able to satisfy the BART requirement
for EGUs (for NOX only or for SO2 and
NOX, depending on which Transport
Rule programs apply in that state)
merely by formally incorporating the
Transport Rule into the long-term
strategy of the SIP.34 If we do not adopt
any rule establishing the Transport Rule
as an alternative to BART, the EGUs in
each affected state will still be required
to participate in the cap-and-trade
programs established by the Transport
Rule. In this case, the SIP or FIP would
also have to apply source-specific BART
to all BART-eligible sources except any
34 Such action by a state would not preclude it
from also including in the SIP source-specific
emission limits for EGUs of its choosing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
that are found not to be subject to BART
due to minimal impacts on visibility or
any that the state concludes should not
be further controlled based on its
consideration of existing controls, cost
of additional controls, remaining
lifetime of the unit, other non-air
impacts and visibility impacts from
controls. It is important to recognize
that because of the nature of cap-andtrade programs, total state-wide
emissions will not be very different, if
at all, if the EPA were not to make a
final determination that participation in
the Transport Rule trading programs
satisfied the BART requirements. Any
EGUs participating in the Transport
Rule trading programs that would be
required to comply with source-specific
BART would generate tradable emission
allowances that would find buyers
among the other EGUs in the state.
Thus, we expect that the outcome of the
Transport Rule may change how a fixed
amount of total emissions from EGUs is
divided among EGUs in a given affected
state. Because of the certainty of EGUs
collectively meeting the Transport Rule
emission caps, that fixed amount of
emissions will generally be substantially
less than historical total EGU emissions
in a given state.
We have concluded that it is not
practicable to perform an analysis
which would attempt to predict exactly
which EGUs would have higher and
lower emissions under the Transport
Rule trading programs and sourcespecific BART. We have, however,
identified the locations of BART-eligible
sources in Transport Rule-affected states
to determine if there are high
percentages of minority or low-income
populations living near such sources.
These are the sources that conceivably
could have higher emissions if we
finalize the proposed rule than if we do
not. An analysis of demographic data
shows that the average percentage of
African Americans living within a 3mile radius of BART-eligible sources in
Transport Rule-affected states is
somewhat higher (18 percent) than the
corresponding national average (12
percent). All other socio-demographic
parameters evaluated are within two
percent of the national average
percentages, or below the national
average percentages. The results of the
demographic analysis are presented in
the memorandum titled, ‘‘Demographic
Proximity Analysis for BART-Eligible
Electric Generating Units,’’ July 2011, a
copy of which is available in the docket
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729). Strictly
speaking, if we were not to finalize this
rule and the states (or we, through FIPs)
were to impose source-specific BART on
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82231
these sources, other sources might
increase their emissions under the capand-trade programs. Since we do not
know which other sources might do so,
we could not perform a similar
demographic analysis on such other
sources.
We do know that under the Transport
Rule, ozone and PM2.5 air quality and
health risks will be greatly reduced
compared either to current conditions or
to future conditions if there were no
Transport Rule. In the Transport Rule,
the EPA estimated the distribution of
PM2.5 mortality risks according to race,
income, and educational attainment
before and after implementation of the
Transport Rule. In that analysis, we
found that the Transport Rule marketbased regional approach to reducing
emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs
provided the greatest PM2.5-related
health benefits among populations:
(1) Most susceptible to air pollution
impacts, regardless of race; (2) with
lower levels of educational attainment;
and (3) living in counties with among
the highest number of individuals living
below the poverty line. The analysis
also indicates that the Transport Rule,
in conjunction with the implementation
of existing or proposed rules, will
reduce the disparity in risk between the
highest-risk counties and the other 95
percent of counties for all races and
educational levels. This analysis is
presented in more detail in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Transport Rule which is available in the
Transport Rule docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2009–0491 and from the main EPA Web
page for the Transport Rule
www.epa.gov/airtransport.
The results of the Transport Rule
analysis suggest that regional reductions
in PM2.5 levels can produce significant
human health benefits—particularly
among populations most susceptible
and vulnerable to PM2.5 impacts. PM2.5
air quality improvements that would be
expected under implementation of
source-specific BART may differ from
the Transport Rule in terms of the
emission reductions required at any
given source, especially since states
have the discretion to determine which
BART-eligible sources to control and the
level of control that is feasible.
However, the results of the Transport
Rule assessment suggest that the
regional Transport Rule approach
provides widespread health benefits
especially among populations at greatest
risk.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82232
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
§ 52.38 or § 52.39 under the Transport
Rule Federal Implementation Plan or
established under a SIP revision that is
approved as meeting the requirements
of § 52.38 or § 52.39, for a geographic
enhancement to the program to address
the requirement under § 51.302(c)
related to BART for reasonably
attributable impairment from the
pollutant covered by such trading
program in that State.
*
*
*
*
*
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollution control,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Regional haze, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.
Dated: December 23, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
PART 51—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671q.
2. Section 51.308 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 51.308 Regional haze program
requirements.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) A State subject to a trading
program established in accordance with
§ 52.38 or § 52.39 under a Transport
Rule Federal Implementation Plan need
not require BART-eligible fossil fuelfired electric steam generating plants in
the State to install, operate, and
maintain BART for the pollutant
covered by such trading program in the
State. A State that chooses to meet the
emission reduction requirements of the
Transport Rule by submitting a SIP
revision that establishes a trading
program and is approved as meeting the
requirements of § 52.38 or § 52.39 also
need not require BART-eligible fossil
fuel-fired electric steam generating
plants in the State to install, operate,
and maintain BART for the pollutant
covered by such trading program in the
State. A State may adopt provisions,
consistent with the requirements
applicable to the State for a trading
program established in accordance with
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
3. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart B—Alabama
4. Section 52.61 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 52.61
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, parts 51 and 52 of chapter I
of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are proposed to be amended
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
PART 52—[AMENDED]
Jkt 226001
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.308(d)(3) and
(e) for protection of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.54 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.55 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart K—Florida
5. Section 52.534 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 52.534
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.305, 51.307, and
51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.540 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart L—Georgia
6. Section 52.580 is added to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 52.580
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.584 with
respect to emissions of NOX for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.585 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart P—Indiana
7. Section 52.791 is added to read as
follows:
§ 52.791
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.789 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.790 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart Q—Iowa
8. Section 52.842 is added to read as
follows:
§ 52.842
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and(e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.840 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.841 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
§ 52.1279
Subpart S—Kentucky
9. Section 52.936 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs (a)
and (b) and adding paragraphs (c) and
(d) to read as follows:
§ 52.936
Visibility protection.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.940 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.941 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Visibility protection.
§ 52.1886
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.1284 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart AA—Missouri
13. Section 52.1339 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 52.1339
10. Section 52.985 is added to read as
follows:
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.308(d)(3) and
(e) for protection of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.1236 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.1327 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.984 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart X—Michigan
11. Section 52.1183 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 52.1183
Visibility protection.
Visibility protection.
Subpart II—North Carolina
14. Section 52.1776 is added to read
as follows:
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.307, and
51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.1186 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.1187 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.1784 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.1785 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart Z—Mississippi
Subpart KK—Ohio
12. Section 52.1279 is added to read
as follows:
15. Section 52.1886 is added to read
as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
§ 52.1776
PO 00000
Visibility protection.
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.1882 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.1883 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
Subpart T—Louisiana
§ 52.985
82233
16. Section 52.2042 is added to read
as follows:
§ 52.2042
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.2040 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.2041 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart PP—South Carolina
17. Section 52.2132 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
§ 52.2132
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, and
51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.2140 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.2141 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
82234
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Subpart RR—Tennessee
18. Section 52.2234 is added to read
as follows:
§ 52.2234
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.2240 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.2241 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart SS—Texas
19. Section 52.2304 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding new
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 52.2304
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.305, and 51.308(d)(3) and
(e) for protection of visibility in
mandatory Class I Federal areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.2283 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.2284 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart VV—Virginia
20. Section 52.2452 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding new
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 52.2452
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, and
51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.2440 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Dec 29, 2011
Jkt 226001
(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.2441 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
Subpart XX—West Virginia
21. Section 52.2533 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
§ 52.2533
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.307, and
51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal
areas.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for NOX. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
NOX are satisfied by § 52.2540 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2. The requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of
SO2 are satisfied by § 52.2541 for the
sources subject to those requirements.
[FR Doc. 2011–33586 Filed 12–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560—50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0943; FRL–9614–6]
RIN 2060–AQ55
Amendments to Delegation of
Authority Provisions in the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is taking action to
propose amendments to the New Source
Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program that would
correct certain outdated language that
currently limits EPA’s ability to delegate
the Federal PSD program to interested
Indian tribes. This action proposes
changes that would provide consistency
with the current Federal PSD regulatory
requirements by allowing the EPA to
delegate the PSD program to interested
tribes for their attainment areas. The
regulations already authorize
administrative delegation, and EPA has
in the past delegated administration of
the PSD program to states and local
governments for their attainment areas.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The EPA is proposing to delete a
restriction on tribes’ ability to take
delegation of the PSD program and to
include tribes, along with state and
locals, in another section to make it
clear that tribes may voluntarily take
direct delegation of the NSR program in
areas that are currently attaining the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The rule would not impose
any new requirements. The EPA is also
proposing to correct a minor
typographical error.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 28, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0943, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2010–0943 in the subject line of the
message.
• Fax: Send comments to (202) 566–
9744, attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0943.
• Mail: Amendments to Delegation of
Authority Provisions in the PSD
program Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0943.
• Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket
Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2010–0943. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–
0943. 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 email. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM
30DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82219-82234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33586]
[[Page 82219]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51 and 52
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729; FRL-9614-7]
RIN 2060-AR05
Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to
Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation
Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to rules that pertain to the
regional haze program. In this action, the EPA is proposing that the
trading program in the recently promulgated Transport Rule, also known
as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, achieves greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas than source-specific Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) in those states covered by the Transport
Rule. In this action, the EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval
of the regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that have been
submitted by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina and Texas. These states relied on requirements of the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy certain regional haze
requirements. To address deficiencies in all of the CAIR-dependent
regional haze SIPs, in this action, the EPA is proposing Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to replace reliance on the CAIR
requirements in these SIPs with reliance on the Transport Rule as an
alternative to BART. States are encouraged, at any time, to submit a
revision to their regional haze SIP incorporating the requirements of
the Transport Rule at which time we will withdraw the FIP being
proposed in this action.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 13,
2012.
Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held January 17, 2012.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on
the comment period and the public hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729.
Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue Northwest, Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at 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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held on January 17,
2012, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1st Floor, Building
C, Room C111C, 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709. The public hearing will start at 10 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. or
until the last registered speaker has spoken. Because this hearing is
being held at U.S. government facilities, everyone planning to attend
the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to
the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In
addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal
belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be
required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large
signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used inside
the classroom and outside of the building, and demonstrations will not
be allowed on federal property for security reasons.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information on this
document, contact Ms. Martha Keating, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C539-04, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-9407; fax number: (919)
541-0824; email address: keating.martha@epa.gov.
To register to speak at the hearing or attend the hearing on this
document, contact Ms. Pamela Long, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C504-01, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641; fax number: (919)
541-5509; email address: long.pam@epa.gov.
[[Page 82220]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This proposed action does not directly regulate emission sources.
It will affect state and local air pollution control agencies located
within the geographic areas covered by the Transport Rule \1\ and whose
regional haze state implementation plan relied on CAIR \2\ as an
alternative to BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or Nitrogen
Oxide (NOX)for electric generating units (EGUs) subject to
BART requirements. Some of the EGUs located in such geographic areas
may also be affected by the FIPs that may result from final rulemaking
on this proposed action in that the final rule would allow states the
option of not requiring them to meet source-specific BART emission
limits to which they otherwise could be subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
\2\ See Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain
Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule, 70 FR
25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These sources are in the following groups:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry group SIC \a\ NAICS \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Services.......................... 492 221111, 221112,
221113, 221119,
221121, 221122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed to be CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this notice will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html
under ``Recent Actions.''
D. What information should I know about a public hearing?
The hearing will be held on January 17, 2012, at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1st Floor, Building C, Room C111C, 109
T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The public
hearing will start at 10 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. or until the last
registered speaker has spoken. Because this hearing is being held at
U.S. government facilities, everyone planning to attend the hearing
should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security
staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In addition, you
will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you
bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to
return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be
allowed in the building, cameras may only be used inside the classroom
and outside of the building, and demonstrations will not be allowed on
federal property for security reasons. To register to speak at the
hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641
before 5 p.m. on January 13, 2012. For updates and additional
information on a public hearing, please check the EPA's Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html under ``recent actions.''
E. How is this notice organized?
The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. What information should I know about a public hearing?
E. How is this notice organized?
II. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Addressing Regional Haze
C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART
1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility Progress of an Alternative
Program to BART
2. What is the Relationship between BART and CAIR?
3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for State Regional Haze
Implementation Plans
4. The Transport Rule and Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans
IV. Proposed Determination That the Transport Rule Is an Approvable
Alternative to BART
A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test
B. Identification of Affected Class I Areas
C. Scenarios Examined
D. Emission Projections
E. Air Quality Modeling Results
F. Proposed Amendment to the Regional Haze Rule
V. Proposed Limited Disapproval of Certain States' Regional Haze
SIPs
VI. Proposed FIPs
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
[[Page 82221]]
II. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
In this action, the EPA is proposing to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule \3\ achieve greater reasonable progress
towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in
mandatory Class I federal areas than source-specific BART in the states
in which the Transport Rule applies. Specifically, we are proposing
that the trading programs set out in the Transport Rule meet the
requirements of an alternative program as prescribed in the Regional
Haze Rule (RHR) at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) and are proposing to revise the
regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) accordingly to allow
states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the
Transport Rule for source-specific BART. In addition, we are also
proposing to find that any approved SIPs revising or adopting the
Transport Rule trading programs, which must control emissions at least
as stringently as the Transport Rule FIPs, will also meet the
requirements for an alternative to BART for EGUs for the pollutants
which the Transport Rule limits in that state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011), and Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Ozone finalized on December 15, 2011 for more details.
For purposes of this proposed rule, the Transport Rule includes all
of the states (28) included in the final Transport Rule and the
supplemental rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, we are also proposing a limited disapproval of the
regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas. These
states, fully consistent with the EPA's regulations at the time, relied
on CAIR requirements to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals.\4\ CAIR and the CAIR FIP
requirements, however, will only remain in force to address emissions
through the 2011 control period and thus CAIR cannot be relied upon in
a SIP as a substitute for BART or as part of a long-term control
strategy. The EPA has already proposed limited disapproval of certain
other state regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR.\5\ We plan to take
final action on both groups of SIPs when this action is finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The states for which we are proposing limited disapproval in
this action are those that both relied on CAIR to satisfy BART
requirements and are now covered by the requirements of the
Transport Rule, for which we have not already made such a proposal.
\5\ The states for which the EPA has previously proposed limited
disapproval of regional haze SIPs because of reliance on CAIR are
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action we are also proposing FIPs for all the states for
which we have previously proposed limited disapproval and for all the
states for which we are proposing a limited disapproval of their
regional haze SIP in this action due to the change in status of CAIR.
Regional haze SIPs were due in December 2007. For a number of the
states identified above, we made a finding on January 15, 2009, that
the states had failed to timely submit a regional haze SIP. Most of
these states have subsequently submitted SIPs, but we have not yet
acted on them. Under the CAA, the EPA is required to promulgate a FIP
within 2 years after finding that a state has failed to make a required
submission or after disapproving a SIP in whole or in part, unless the
state first adopts and we have fully approved a SIP. CAA Sec.
110(c)(1). Given these CAA requirements and the fact that the Transport
Rule has now replaced CAIR, we consider it appropriate at this time to
issue FIPs to address the deficiencies in the regional haze SIPs
related to the termination of CAIR. Our adoption of these FIPs at this
time avoids the near-term need for additional administrative steps on
the part of these states. The proposed regional haze FIPs also allow
states the option of a less costly approach to meeting the regional
haze requirements of the CAA since the proposed FIPs rely on the
trading program already promulgated in the Transport Rule. We encourage
states, at any time, to submit a revision to their regional haze SIP
incorporating the requirements of the Transport Rule at which time we
will withdraw the FIP we are proposing in this action. States may also
include in such a SIP revision provisions applicable to specific EGU
BART sources that they anticipate (or find after implementation of the
Transport Rule) to continue to cause visibility impairment that the
state wishes to reduce. However, we anticipate that some states may
choose to remain subject to the proposed FIP and not submit a SIP
revision. Our proposed finding that the Transport Rule makes greater
reasonable progress than BART for EGUs in these states will hold true
regardless of whether a state chooses to submit a SIP revision under
subpart 52.38 and 52.39 or remain subject to a FIP.
We are not proposing to disapprove the reasonable progress targets
for 2018 that are an element of the long-term strategies for these
states. The affected states originally set the reasonable progress
goals in their SIPs based on the emission reductions expected to be
achieved by CAIR, along with other emission reductions qualified for
that purpose. The overall EGU emission reductions from the Transport
Rule are larger than the EGU reductions achieved by CAIR and the
substitution of the Transport Rule for CAIR does not weaken any
affected state's long-term strategy. We intend to act on the reasonable
progress goals and long-term strategies (including the Transport Rule)
and other requirements of the RHR (monitoring, consultation with
federal land managers, etc.) for each state in an individual notice at
or after the time of the final rule for this action.
III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
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 fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, 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 and alters
the color of scenes, and reduces the distance at which one can see a
scene. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as
acid deposition and eutrophication.
Data from 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 \6\ in many mandatory Class
I federal areas \7\ in the
[[Page 82222]]
western United States is about 60-100 miles, or about one-half to two-
thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States,
the average visual range is less than 20 miles, or about one-fifth of
the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions.
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Visual range is the greatest distance at which a dark object
can be viewed against the sky.
\7\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Addressing Regional Haze
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 which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
the 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''. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. The 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. The EPA promulgated the RHR to address regional haze on
July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in the EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of
Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to
submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
Section 169A of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary 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 \8\ built
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best
Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. Under the
RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such
``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART
1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility Progress of an Alternative Program
to BART
Criteria for determining if an alternative measure achieves greater
reasonable progress than source-specific BART are set out in the RHR at
Sec. 51.308(e)(3). The ``better-than-BART'' test may be satisfied as
follows: If the distribution of emissions is not substantially
different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in
greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed
to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of
emissions is significantly different, then states are directed to
conduct an air quality modeling study to determine differences in
visibility between BART and the alternative program for each impacted
Class I area for the worst and best 20 percent of days.\9\ The two-
pronged visibility test would demonstrate ``greater reasonable
progress'' under the alternative program if both of the following
criteria are met:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ While the RHR directs the state to conduct the air quality
modeling study, as described in section III.C.2, the EPA itself
conducted such a study for CAIR and through a notice-and-comment
rulemaking codified the conclusion that the stated criteria were met
by adding specific provisions allowing the use of CAIR in lieu of
source-specific BART.
--Visibility does not decline in any Class I area,\10\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As explained in section IV.A., the ``decline'' is relative
to modeled future baseline visibility conditions in the absence of
any BART or alternative program control requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by
comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over
all affected Class I areas.
The EPA's authority to establish non-BART alternatives has been
judicially challenged and upheld twice, firmly establishing that the
CAA allows states to substitute other programs for BART where the
alternative achieves greater progress. In the first case, the court
affirmed our interpretation of CAA 169A(b)(2) as allowing for
alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater
reasonable progress than BART. Center for Energy and Economic
Development v. EPA, 398 f.3d 653, 660 (DC Cir. 2005) (``CEED'')
(finding reasonable the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2)
as requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress). In
the second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC
Cir. 2006), the court found EPA's two-pronged visibility test to be a
``reasonable notion of reasonable progress'' and upheld our
determination that states could rely on CAIR, as discussed below, as an
alternative program to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-affected states.
2. What is the relationship between BART and CAIR?
In May 2005, the EPA published CAIR, which required 28 states and
the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. The CAIR
established emission budgets for SO2 and NOX for
states that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind
states and required the significantly contributing states to submit SIP
revisions that implemented these budgets. Because
[[Page 82223]]
such SIP revisions were already overdue, CAIR also promulgated FIPs for
the affected states establishing a cap-and-trade program for EGUs with
opt-in provisions for other sources. States had the flexibility to
subsequently adopt SIP revisions mirroring CAIR requirements or
otherwise providing emission reductions sufficient to address
interference with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in other
states. Many affected states adopted CAIR-mirroring SIPs, while others
chose to remain under CAIR FIPs.
As noted in Section III.C.1, the RHR allows states to implement an
alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program
has been demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal than would BART. The EPA made just such a
demonstration for CAIR in revisions to the regional haze program made
in 2005. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, we amended our
regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
or states that remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97 need
not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and
maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40
CFR 51.308(e)(4).
As a result of our determination that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, fully consistent with
our regulations, designed their regional haze implementation plans to
rely on the CAIR cap-and-trade program as an alternative to BART for
EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX. These states also
relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy for achieving
their reasonable progress goals.
3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for State Regional Haze
Implementation Plans
Following our determination in 2005 that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART'' and the upholding of this determination by the court in 2006,
the DC Circuit Court ruled on several petitions for review challenging
CAIR on various grounds. As a result of this litigation, the DC Circuit
Court remanded CAIR to the EPA, but later decided not to vacate the
rule.\11\ The court thereby left CAIR and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place
in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by
CAIR'' until the EPA replaced it with a rule consistent with the
court's opinion. 550 F.3d at 1178. The EPA replaced CAIR with the
Transport Rule on August 8, 2011.\12\ The Transport Rule will take
effect on January 1, 2012. The CAIR and the CAIR FIPs will remain in
place to address emissions through the end of the 2011 control periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; modified by 550
F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008).
\12\ See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many states relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for
SO2 and NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under
the BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). These states also relied on
the improvement in visibility expected to result from controls planned
or already installed on sources in order to meet CAIR provisions in
developing their long-term visibility strategy. In addition, many
states relied upon their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their
states as legal justification for these planned controls and
consequently did not include separate enforceable measures in their
long-term strategies (a required element of a regional haze SIP
submission) to ensure these EGU reductions. These states also submitted
demonstrations showing that no additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR
would be reasonable for the first 10-year implementation period of the
regional haze program.
Since states in the CAIR-affected region have based a number of
required elements of their regional haze programs on CAIR, which has
now been replaced by the Transport Rule, we cannot fully approve
regional haze SIP revisions that have relied on CAIR for emission
reduction measures. To date, we have proposed limited disapprovals for
some states whose regional haze SIP revisions rely on CAIR (for
example, for the State of Tennessee, 76 FR 33662 (June 9, 2011)). We
intend to take final action on those proposed limited disapprovals of
SIPs when this action is finalized. However, there are other states
whose regional haze SIP relied on CAIR but for which the EPA has not
yet proposed to take action. In this action we are proposing a limited
disapproval of the regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina and Texas. These states relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy
both the BART requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy
sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals, and
they are now covered by the Transport Rule requirements.
4. The Transport Rule and Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
The Transport Rule sunsets CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control
periods in 2012 and beyond. The Transport Rule requires 28 states in
the eastern half of the United States to significantly improve air
quality by reducing EGU SO2 and NOX emissions
that cross state lines and contribute to ground-level ozone and/or fine
particle pollution in other states. The rule allows air-quality-assured
allowance trading among covered sources, utilizing an allowance market
infrastructure modeled after existing allowance trading programs. The
Transport Rule allows sources to trade emissions allowances with other
sources in the same or different states, while firmly constraining any
emissions shifting that may occur by establishing an emission ceiling
for each state.
In developing the Transport Rule, we did not conduct any technical
analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport Rule would
satisfy regional haze BART-related requirements. Accordingly, in the
final Transport Rule, the EPA did not make a determination or establish
any presumption that compliance with the Transport Rule would satisfy
BART-related requirements for EGUs. We have now completed such a
technical analysis and it is the basis of this action in which we are
proposing to find that in affected mandatory Class I federal areas, the
Transport Rule achieves greater reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions than source-
specific BART. Specifically, we are proposing that participation by
EGUs in the Transport Rule trading program set out in 40 CFR part 97
subparts AAAAA-DDDDD meets the requirements of an alternative program
as prescribed in the RHR at Sec. 51.308(e)(3), and we are proposing to
revise the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)
accordingly. The EPA invites comments on these proposed revisions.
The proposed determination in this action that participation in the
Transport Rule trading program may substitute for BART applies only to
EGUs in the states in the Transport Rule region and only to the
pollutants subject to the requirements of the Transport Rule (i.e.,
SO2 and/or NOX). BART for emissions of other
visibility impairing pollutants (e.g., primary PM2.5,
NH3 or VOC) must still be evaluated according to the RHR
Guidelines. Non-EGU sources also remain subject to requirements of the
RHR.
[[Page 82224]]
Under the proposed revision to this section, a state in the
Transport Rule region whose EGUs are subject to the requirements of the
Transport Rule trading program only for annual NOX or ozone
season NOX would be allowed to rely on our proposed
determination that the Transport Rule makes greater reasonable progress
than source-specific BART for NOX. Such a state would still
need to address BART for SO2 and other visibility impairing
pollutants.
In this action we are also proposing a FIP for those Transport Rule
states for which we already have or now are proposing a limited
disapproval due to the termination of CAIR. For these states, the
proposed FIP would replace reliance on the CAIR requirements with
reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs and as a long-
term strategy measure.
We are proposing to leave unchanged the final sentence of section
51.308(e)(4) in the regional haze regulations. This language allows a
state to address BART, when it is required based on reasonable
attribution of visibility impairment at a Class I area to a particular
source by a federal land management agency, by including a geographic
enhancement in its SIP.\13\ For example, a geographic enhancement in
the form of adjusted allocations at a BART-subject source might take
the place of source-specific emission rate limits. Use of a geographic
enhancement in the context of reasonable attribution of visibility
impairment at a Class I area will be addressed in separate EPA or state
actions on a case-by-case basis in accordance with 40 CFR 51.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Under section 51.302, the affected federal land manager may
certify that there exists reasonably attributable visibility
impairment (RAVI) in a mandatory Class I federal area. This
certification is an extraordinary measure to address localized
impacts due to a specific source or sources. The EPA and federal
land managers will work together regarding the review of SIPs (or
the development of FIPs) to respond to a RAVI certification when one
is made, within the better-than-BART construct for regional haze and
in accordance with section 51.302 and section 51.308(e)(4). States
may also include in their SIPs provisions applicable to a specific
source even if no federal land management agency has made such a
reasonable attribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Determination That the Transport Rule Is an Approvable
Alternative to BART
A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test
As described in section III.C.1, the two-pronged test for
determining if an alternative program achieves greater reasonable
progress than source-specific BART is set out in the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). The underlying purpose of both prongs of the test is to
assess whether visibility conditions at Class I areas would be better
with the alternative program in place than they would without it. The
first prong ensures that the alternative program will not cause a
decline in visibility at any affected Class I area. It addresses the
possibility that the alternative program might cause local changes in
emissions that could result in localized visibility degradation. The
second prong ensures that the program results in improvements in
average visibility across all affected Class I areas as compared to
adopting source-specific BART. Together, these tests ensure that the
alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress than would
source-specific BART.
In the case of the Transport Rule as an alternative to source-
specific BART, the logical reference point for the first prong is
visibility conditions as they are expected to be at the time the
Transport Rule is implemented but in the absence of BART. This ensures
that the predicted visibility differences are due to the Transport Rule
alternative and not to other extrinsic factors. For example, if large
increases in wildfires are expected, due to accumulation of fuel from
past forest management practices, a degradation of visibility from
current conditions may be expected. It would be irrational to
disapprove an alternative program as not meeting the first prong of the
test because of a modeled degradation from current conditions, where
that degradation is actually anticipated because of smoke from
wildfires--sources which are not subject to the CAA BART provisions. By
comparing the Transport Rule alternative to future projected baseline
conditions without any BART program, such extrinsic variables are
accounted for. The future projected baseline also accounts for other
non-Transport Rule constraints on EGU emissions including the Acid Rain
Program, the NOX SIP Call, New Source Performance Standards,
Title V permits, any state laws and consent order requiring emission
reductions, and any other permanent and enforceable binding reduction
commitments. We are thus able to ascertain (to the extent possible
where future projections are concerned) whether visibility under the
alternative would decline at any affected Class I area, all other
things being equal. Therefore, in applying the first prong of the test
to the Transport Rule, we used a future (2014) projected baseline.\14\
Similarly, in applying the second prong of the test, we assumed
identical future conditions (the same as in the future 2014 baseline
case) for non-EGU sources for both the source-specific BART scenario
and the Transport Rule scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The 2014 baseline modeling for this analysis is identical
to the Transport Rule 2014 baseline. The 2014 baseline does not
include the Transport Rule, BART, or CAIR control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy each prong of the test, we examined visibility
differences on both the worst and best 20 percent of days. Thus, under
the first prong, visibility must not decline at any affected Class I
area on either the best 20 percent or the worst 20 percent days as a
result of implementing the Transport Rule. In addition, under the
second prong, the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days should be
considered in determining whether the Transport Rule produces greater
average improvement than source-specific BART over all affected Class I
areas.
B. Identification of Affected Class I Areas
In applying the two-pronged test to the Transport Rule, we first
identified the Class I areas in the 48 contiguous states with
sufficiently complete monitoring data available to support the
analysis.\15\ There were 140 such Class I areas represented by 96
IMPROVE monitors; nine Class I areas were excluded that did not have
sufficient historical ambient data from the IMPROVE monitoring program
to support the technical analysis.\16\ After identifying these areas we
then considered two possible approaches we could use to identify which
of these areas are ``affected'' Class I areas in terms of the potential
effect of the Transport Rule as an alternative control program to
source-specific BART. In the first approach, we identified as affected
Class I areas 60 mandatory Class I Federal areas represented by 46
IMPROVE monitors located in 37 complete states and four partial states
that are contained in the eastern portion
[[Page 82225]]
of the Transport Rule modeling domain.\17\ The second approach we
considered was a national approach in which visibility impacts on 140
Class I areas across the 48 contiguous states were evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The modeling used a 2005 base case projected to a 2014
future year. The modeling days for the analysis were based on the
observed 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days from 2005 at each
IMPROVE site. Therefore, the analysis could not be completed for
IMPROVE sites that did not have complete ambient data for 2005.
\16\ In the Regional Haze Program, there are 110 ambient
monitoring sites which represent 155 Class I areas. Therefore, some
monitors represent air quality at more than one Class I area. See
Guidance for Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule, U.S.
EPA, EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, which is found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. In our
analysis we calculated visibility changes at each individual Class I
area. Therefore, some IMPROVE monitors are counted more than once in
the averaging of the visibility data. This does not affect the
proposed finding that the Transport Rule is better than source-
specific BART.
\17\ The ``eastern'' Transport Rule modeling grid used a
horizontal resolution of 12 kilometers (km).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Transport Rule, the determination of states that contribute
significantly to downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance focused on
the 37 states that are fully contained in this eastern modeling domain.
The eastern modeling domain also includes large parts of Montana,
Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. In the Transport Rule, EPA did not
determine that Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico or the six New
England states were contributing to violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
or the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, or interfering with
maintenance in downwind states and therefore they are not included in
the Transport Rule program.\18\ However, we included Class I areas
located in these non-Transport Rule states and partial states in the
first approach for identifying ``affected areas''. It is conceivable
that because of proximity, emissions from the Transport Rule states
could impact any of the Class I areas in the eastern Transport Rule
modeling domain. Specifically, in this first approach for identifying
``affected areas'' in the Transport Rule region, we examined impacts on
27 Class I areas located within the Transport Rule states and 33
additional Class I areas located in non-Transport Rule states but
within the eastern Transport Rule modeling domain, for a total of 60
Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Transport Rule determined that the six New England
states did not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in downwind states. The Transport Rule did not make a
determination whether Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in
neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The eastern Transport Rule modeling domain lies within a larger
modeling domain which covers the lower 48 states and adjacent portions
of Canada and Mexico. In the Transport Rule, the results obtained with
this national domain were used to calculate boundary conditions for the
eastern Transport Rule region. The EPA did not use the national domain
to investigate interstate contributions to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance, in part because the air quality model
structure for the national domain is less suitable for that type of
use.\19\ In the second approach to identifying which areas are
``affected'' Class I areas, we used data from the larger domain to
estimate potential visibility impacts on Class I areas located to the
west of the Transport Rule modeling region boundary. The additional 80
Class I areas under this national approach are in states or part of
states that were not part of the eastern modeling domain for the
Transport Rule, but were part of the western modeling domain.\20\ In
this approach, the eastern domain 12 km modeling results were used to
calculate visibility changes in the 60 eastern Class I areas and the
national domain 36 km modeling results were used to calculate
visibility changes in the 80 western Class I areas. Consideration of
this national region would encompass the possibility that the Transport
Rule might have the effect of increasing EGU emissions in the most
western portion of the United States due to shifts in electricity
generation or other market effects. In total, the national domain
includes 140 Class I areas (including the 60 contained within the
Transport Rule region).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The eastern modeling domain used a 12 km grid size, while
the national modeling domain used a 36 km grid size. See Air Quality
Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011,
which is found at: https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
\20\ See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011, which is found at: https://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We request comment on whether the ``affected Class I areas'' should
be considered to be the 60 Class I areas located in the Transport Rule
eastern modeling domain, the larger set of 140 Class I areas in the
larger national domain, or some other set. We note that given the
modeling results presented in section VI.E, the choice between the 60
Class I areas or the 140 Class I areas does not affect our proposed
conclusion that both prongs of the two-prong test are met.
C. Scenarios Examined
The Transport Rule requires 28 states in the eastern half of the
United States to reduce EGU SO2 and NOX emissions
that cross state lines and contribute to ground-level ozone and fine
particle pollution in other states. BART, on the other hand, is
applicable nationwide and covers 26 industrial categories, including
EGUs, of a certain vintage. In our comparison, we sought to determine
whether the Transport Rule cap-and-trade program for EGUs will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would BART for EGUs only. Therefore,
we examined two relevant control scenarios. The first control scenario
examined SO2 and NOX emissions from all EGUs
nationwide after the application of BART controls to all BART-eligible
EGUs (``Nationwide BART''). In the second scenario, EGU SO2
and NOX emissions reductions attributable to the Transport
Rule were applied in the Transport Rule region and BART controls were
applied to all BART-eligible EGUS outside the Transport Rule region
(``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere''). The latter scenario reflects the
fact that source-specific BART would remain a regional haze SIP element
outside the Transport Rule region. In order to more accurately project
the Transport Rule emissions, it is necessary to assume EGU BART
controls outside the Transport Rule region to account for potential
load and emission shifting among EGUs.
For both the ``Nationwide BART'' scenario and the ``Transport Rule
+ BART-elsewhere'' scenario, we modeled the presumptive EGU BART limits
for SO2 and NOX emission rates as specified in
the BART Guidelines (Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the
Regional Haze Rule, 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005), unless an actual
emission rate at a given unit with existing controls is lower. In the
latter case, we modeled the lower emission rates. In addition, we
modeled the impacts of BART using stringent assumptions regarding the
EGUs (or specific units at EGUs) that would be subject to BART.
Specifically, we assumed that all BART-eligible EGUs were actually
subject to BART requirements. We also assumed that presumptive BART
limits would be applied to much smaller units. In this analysis we
assumed the threshold for BART-eligibility was 100 megawatts (MW) for
SO2 and 25 MW for NOX and did not eliminate any
sources based on their annual total emissions. (By comparison, the RHR
BART Guidelines only apply presumptive limits to EGUs having a total
generating capacity of 750 MW and exempt BART-eligible units with the
potential to emit less than 40 tons per year of either SO2
or NOX.)
The RHR BART Guidelines specify presumptive SO2 BART
limits for an EGU with an existing scrubber as 95 percent scrubber
control efficiency or 0.15 pounds per million Btu (lbs/MMBtu). We used
the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS), an EPA database of
existing and planned-committed EGUs, to identify which BART-eligible
units have existing scrubbers.\21\ The NEEDS also contains information
on scrubber efficiency and emission rates. For scrubbed BART-
[[Page 82226]]
eligible units, we based our BART emission rate on a comparison of the
emission rate listed for that unit in NEEDS to the presumptive
SO2 emission rate. That is, if the unit has at least a 95
percent efficient scrubber, the emission rate being achieved at that
control efficiency was modeled for that unit even if the emission rate
was higher than 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. Conversely, if an emission rate of 0.15
lbs/MMBtu or lower is being achieved, we modeled that emission rate for
the unit, even if the scrubber is less than 95 percent efficient. For
BART-eligible units without existing scrubbers, we modeled an emission
rate that reflected 95 percent control based on a new installation of a
highly efficient scrubber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See The NEEDS User Guide: https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/CSAPR/docs/Guide_to_NEEDSv410.pdf which is found
at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR BART Guidelines specify presumptive limits for
NOX based on coal type and boiler configuration. The BART
guidelines also specify that existing NOX controls must be
operated year round. For the source-specific ``Nationwide BART''
scenario and for the ``elsewhere'' EGUs in the ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' scenario, we assumed that any BART-subject unit with
existing NOX controls in the future baseline case would
retain at least those controls and would be required to operate them
year round. If the existing NOX controls in the future
baseline case did not meet the presumptive BART limits (with the
modifications about applicability as described above), we assumed
installation of post-combustion controls that would meet the BART
guidelines with year round operation. In the ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' scenario, there are 5 states that are subject to the
Transport Rule requirements during the ozone season only.\22\ For these
states, NOX controls were assumed to operate only during
ozone season as required by the Transport Rule. The RHR BART Guidelines
also specify presumptive limits for NOX based on coal type
and boiler configuration. Table 1 summarizes the NOX
emission limits we applied to BART-eligible units of 25 MW or greater.
For units firing a coal blend, which the BART Guidelines do not
address, we calculated a weighted presumptive NOX limit
based on the percentage of each coal type fired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ States subject to the Transport Rule requirements during
the ozone season only are Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi
and Florida.
Table 1--BART Presumptive NOX Limits by Boiler Configuration and Coal Type
[lbs/MMBtu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry bottom wall-fired.................................. 0.39 0.23 0.29
Tangential-fired....................................... 0.28 0.15 0.17
Cell burners........................................... 0.40 0.45 [*]
Dry turbo-fired........................................ 0.32 0.23 [*]
Wet bottom tangential-fired............................ 0.62 [*] [*]
Cyclone................................................ 0.10 0.10 0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not applicable.
Certain EGUs in the analysis were constrained by emission limits
other than presumptive limits due to a proposed or final regional haze
SIP, a proposed or final regional haze FIP, a final consent decree, or
state rules. These units and their emission limits are detailed in the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed rule. (See Technical
Support Document for Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART
Alternative, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.)
D. Emission Projections
To estimate emissions expected from the scenarios described in
section IV.C, we used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The IPM is a
multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the
electric power sector. It is used extensively by the EPA to support
regulatory activities. The IPM provides forecasts of least-cost
capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control
strategies for meeting electricity demand subject to environmental,
transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. The IPM was used
in this case to evaluate the emissions impacts of the described
scenarios limiting the emissions of SO2 and NOX
from EGUs. This analysis used the most recently updated IPM platform
which is documented at https://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/.\23\ Table 2
presents the annual emissions for each policy scenario as projected by
the IPM. As shown by the numbers in the far right column, ``Transport
Rule + BART-elsewhere'' achieved greater emission reductions nationwide
\24\ for both pollutants than source-specific ``Nationwide BART''
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Extensive documentation of the IPM platform may be found at
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.
\24\ In the context of this action, when we refer to nationwide
emissions or a nationwide analysis, we are referring to the
contiguous 48 states.
Table 2--EGU SO2 and NOX Annual Emissions as Projected by IPM
[In thousands of tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
reduction from
``Transport Rule
+ BART-
2014 Base Case 2014 ``Nationwide 2014 ``Transport elsewhere''
EGU emissions BART'' Rule + BART- (``Nationwide
elsewhere'' BART'' minus
``Transport Rule
+ BART-
elsewhere'')
------------------------------------------------
