Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Mississippi; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 11879-11894 [2012-4661]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local
governments, or EPA consults with state
and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
EPA also may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications and that
preempts state law unless the Agency
consults with state and local officials
early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
This rule 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, because it
merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate
environmental health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995
requires federal agencies to evaluate
existing technical standards when
developing a new regulation. To comply
with NTTAA, EPA must consider and
use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’
(VCS) if available and applicable when
developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this action. Today’s
action does not require the public to
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11879
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–4711 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0784, FRL–9638–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; State of
Mississippi; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing a limited
approval of two revisions to the
Mississippi state implementation plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of
Mississippi through the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) on September 22, 2008, and
May 9, 2011, that address regional haze
for the first implementation period.
These revisions address the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and EPA’s rules that require
states to prevent any future and remedy
any existing anthropogenic impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
(national parks and wilderness areas)
caused by emissions of air pollutants
from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as
the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is proposing a limited
approval of these SIP revisions to
implement the regional haze
requirements for Mississippi on the
basis that the revisions, as a whole,
strengthen the Mississippi SIP. EPA has
previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Mississippi regional
haze SIP because of deficiencies in the
State’s regional haze SIP submittal
arising from the remand by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA
of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
Consequently, EPA is not proposing to
take action in this rulemaking to address
the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11880
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Comments must be received on
or before March 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2009–0784, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404–562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0784,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009–
0784.’’ 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 through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to 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, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Waterson or Michele Notarianni,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9061 and by
electronic mail at
waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele
Notarianni can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9031 and by
electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Mississippi’s
regional haze submittal?
A. No Affected Class I Areas in Mississippi
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
2. Modeling to Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility
Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To
Evaluate for Reasonable Progress
Controls in Mississippi and Surrounding
Areas
5. BART
C. Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Requirements
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
E. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
2. Consultation With the FLMs
F. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
of Mississippi’s September 22, 2008,
and May 9, 2011, SIP revisions
addressing regional haze under CAA
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because
the revisions as a whole strengthen the
Mississippi SIP. Throughout this
document, references to Mississippi’s
(or MDEQ’s or the State’s) ‘‘regional
haze SIP’’ refer to Mississippi’s original
September 22, 2008, regional haze SIP
submittal, as later amended in a SIP
revision submitted May 9, 2011. This
proposed rulemaking explains the basis
for EPA’s proposed limited approval
action.1
In a separate action, EPA has
previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Mississippi regional
haze SIP because of deficiencies in the
State’s regional haze SIP submittal
1 Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and
EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval
results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even
of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA
from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division,
OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional
Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni
Memorandum) located at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR
to meet certain regional haze
requirements. See 76 FR 82219
(December 30, 2011). EPA is not
proposing to take action in today’s
rulemaking on issues associated with
Mississippi’s reliance on CAIR in its
regional haze SIP.2 Comments on EPA’s
proposed limited disapproval of
Mississippi’s regional haze SIP are
accepted at the docket for EPA’s
December 20, 2011 rulemaking (see
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0729). The comment period for EPA’s
December 30, 2011, rulemaking is
scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
II. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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, color,
and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
2 Mississippi’s SIP revisions rely on CAIR to
address BART requirements related to both nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). However,
EPA’s replacement rule for CAIR (i.e., the
‘‘Transport Rule,’’ also known as the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule) includes Mississippi only in the
trading program to cover NOX. States such as
Mississippi that are subject to the requirements of
the Transport Rule trading program only for NOX
must still address BART for SO2 and other visibility
impairing pollutants. On December 30, 2011, EPA
proposed a limited disapproval of the Mississippi
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the
State’s regional haze SIP submittal arising from the
State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional
haze requirements. In that action, EPA also
proposed to issue a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) to address the deficiencies in Mississippi’s SIP
associated with the BART requirements for NOX for
electrical generating units (EGUs) based on EPA’s
proposed revisions to the RHR allowing states to
substitute participation in the trading programs
under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART.
However, EPA did not propose a plan to address
the deficiencies associated with the BART
requirements for SO2 since the Transport Rule does
not cover SO2 emissions from Mississippi EGUs.
Because Mississippi also relied on CAIR in
assessing the need for emissions reductions for SO2
from EGUs to satisfy BART requirements, the State
will have to re-evaluate EGUs with respect to SO2
BART requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 3 in many Class I
areas 4 (i.e., national parks and
memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to
two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class
I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715
(July 1, 1999).
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
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 areas
which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.’’ On December
2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to
address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to
a single source or small group of
sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable
visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR
80084. These regulations represented
the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring,
3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas
consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres,
wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 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. See 44
FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 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 area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term
‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11881
modeling, and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999
(64 FR 35713), the RHR. 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 EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some
of the main elements of the regional
haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The
requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5 40
CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit
the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17,
2007.
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among
states, tribal governments, and various
Federal agencies. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively
address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need
to develop strategies in coordination
with one another, taking into account
the effect of emissions from one
jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
EPA has encouraged the states and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
5 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico
must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of
the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under
the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section
74–2–4).
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11882
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of
state governments, tribal governments,
and various federal agencies established
to initiate and coordinate activities
associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air
quality issues in the southeastern
United States. Member state and tribal
governments include: Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern
Band of the Cherokee Indians.
III. What are the requirements for
Regional haze SIPs?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. The CAA and the RHR
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations require states
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as
the principal metric or unit for
expressing visibility. This visibility
metric expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility
expressed in deciviews is determined by
using air quality measurements to
estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light
extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure
for tracking progress in improving
visibility than light extinction itself
because each deciview change is an
equal incremental change in visibility
perceived by the human eye. Most
people can detect a change in visibility
at one deciview.6
6 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
The deciview is used in expressing
RPGs (which are interim visibility goals
towards meeting the national visibility
goal), defining baseline, current, and
natural conditions, and tracking changes
in visibility. The regional haze SIPs
must contain measures that ensure
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in
Class I areas caused by anthropogenic
air pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources
of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program (40
CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the
process for determining reasonable
progress, states must calculate the
degree of existing visibility impairment
at each Class I area at the time of each
regional haze SIP submittal and
periodically review progress every five
years, i.e., midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the
RHR requires states to determine the
degree of impairment (in deciviews) for
the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most
impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over
a specified time period at each of their
Class I areas. In addition, states must
also develop an estimate of natural
visibility conditions for the purpose of
comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility
impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those
estimates. EPA has provided guidance
to states regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural, and current visibility
conditions in documents titled, EPA’s
Guidance for Estimating Natural
Visibility Conditions Under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–005 located at https://www.epa.
gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_
envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred
to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance’’), and Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,
September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–004
located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/
t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf),
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003
Tracking Progress Guidance’’).
For the first regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
visibility impairment for the 20 percent
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five-year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the
amount of progress made. In general, the
2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which
improvement in visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of regional haze SIPs from the
states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two
distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and
one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class
I area for each (approximately) 10-year
implementation period. The RHR does
not mandate specific milestones or rates
of progress, but instead calls for states
to establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must
provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period.
States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA
and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the time necessary for
compliance; (3) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) the remaining
useful life of any potentially affected
sources. States must demonstrate in
their SIPs how these factors are
considered when selecting the RPGs for
the best and worst days for each
applicable Class I area. States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program (‘‘EPA’s
Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1,
2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting
the RPGs, states must also consider the
rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to
as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the
‘‘glidepath’’) and the emissions
reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the 10-year
period of the SIP. Uniform progress
towards achievement of natural
conditions by the year 2064 represents
a rate of progress which states are to use
for analytical comparison to the amount
of progress they expect to achieve. In
setting RPGs, each state with one or
more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must
also consult with potentially
‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby
states with emissions sources that may
be affecting visibility impairment at the
Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources 7 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.
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emissions limits for each
applicable source. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plant with a total
7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts (MW), a state must use the
approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA
has stated that states should use their
best judgment in determining whether
VOC or NH3 compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states
may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below
which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emissions sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Any exemption threshold set
by the state should not be higher than
0.5 deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR,
and document their BART control
determination analyses. In making
BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that
states consider the following factors: (1)
The costs of compliance, (2) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at
the source, (4) the remaining useful life
of the source, and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States are
free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each
factor.
A regional haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emissions limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA approval of the
regional haze SIP. See CAA section
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11883
169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states
to implement an alternative program in
lieu of BART so long as the alternative
program can be demonstrated to achieve
greater reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal than would
BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA
made just such a demonstration for
CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
EPA’s regulations provide that states
participating in the CAIR cap-and trade
program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant
to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which
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. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Because CAIR did not address direct
emissions of PM, states were still
required to conduct a BART analysis for
PM emissions from EGUs subject to
BART for that pollutant. Challenges to
CAIR, however, resulted in the remand
of the rule to EPA. See North Carolina
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008).
EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to
address the interstate transport of NOX
and SO2 in the eastern United States.
See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the
Transport Rule,’’ also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On
December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to
find that the trading programs in the
Transport Rule would achieve greater
reasonable progress towards the
national goal than would BART in the
states in which the Transport Rule
applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this
proposed finding, EPA also proposed to
revise the RHR to allow states to
substitute participation in the trading
programs under the Transport Rule for
source-specific BART. EPA has not yet
taken final action on that rule. Also on
December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit
issued an order addressing the status of
the Transport Rule and CAIR in
response to motions filed by numerous
parties seeking a stay of the Transport
Rule pending judicial review. In that
order, the DC Circuit stayed the
Transport Rule pending the court’s
resolutions of the petitions for review of
that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P.
v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated
cases). The court also indicated that
EPA is expected to continue to
administer CAIR in the interim until the
court rules on the petitions for review
of the Transport Rule.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11884
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the CAA that states
include in their regional haze SIP a 10
to 15 year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the RHR requires that states include
a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The
LTS is the compilation of all control
measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific
SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs.
The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures as
necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals’’ for all Class I areas
within, or affected by emissions from,
the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area located in another state, the
RHR requires the impacted state to
coordinate with the contributing states
in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases,
the contributing state must demonstrate
that it has included, in its SIP, all
measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emissions reductions needed to
meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The
RPOs have provided forums for
significant interstate consultation, but
additional consultations between states
may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two states belong
to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their LTS,
including stationary, minor, mobile, and
area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the following
seven factors listed below are taken into
account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emissions reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the
RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations
and control measures; and (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40
CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for
RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must
provide for a periodic review and SIP
revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission
of the state’s first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment,
which was due December 17, 2007, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and
(c). On or before this date, the state must
revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing RAVI and regional haze, and
the state must submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional
haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and
periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively.
The periodic review of a state’s LTS
must report on both regional haze and
RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I
areas within the state. The strategy must
be coordinated with the monitoring
strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE
network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to
determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the state;
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other states;
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
the state, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions. A state
must also make a commitment to update
the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to
cover an initial implementation period
extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and
revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every 10 years thereafter.
Periodic SIP revisions must meet the
core requirements of section 51.308(d)
with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for
BART applies only to the first regional
haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART
must continue to comply with the BART
provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted
above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure
that the statutory requirement of
reasonable progress will continue to be
met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR
51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of
Mississippi’s regional haze submittal?
On September 22, 2008, and May 9,
2011, MDEQ submitted revisions to the
Mississippi SIP to address regional haze
as required by EPA’s RHR.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. No Affected Class I Areas in
Mississippi
Mississippi has no Class I area within
its borders. The following Class I areas
are the closest to the State’s boundaries:
the Breton National Wildlife Refuge
(Breton) in Louisiana, Sipsey
Wilderness Area (Sipsey) in Alabama,
and Caney Creek Wilderness Area
(Caney Creek) in Arkansas. Mississippi
is responsible for developing a regional
haze SIP that addresses sources within
its borders that affect Class I areas in
other states and for consulting with
these other states. The September 22,
2008, Mississippi regional haze SIP, as
later amended on May 9, 2011,
identified and considered emissions
sources within Mississippi that may
cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas in
neighboring states as required by 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO
worked with the State in developing the
technical analyses used to make these
determinations, including state-by-state
contributions to visibility impairment in
specific Class I areas, which included
the Class I areas affected by emissions
from Mississippi.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section III.E of this
action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by a
state for achieving RPGs in Class I areas
affected by emissions sources in the
state. Mississippi’s LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the
emissions reductions from federal, state,
and local controls that take effect in the
State from the end of the baseline period
starting in 2004 until 2018. The
Mississippi LTS was developed by the
State, in coordination with the VISTAS
RPO, through an evaluation of the
following components: (1) Identification
of the emissions units within
Mississippi and in surrounding states
that likely have the largest impacts
currently on visibility at Class I areas in
nearby states, and (2) estimation of
emissions reductions for 2018 based on
all controls required or expected under
federal and state regulations for the
2004–2018 period (including BART).
In a separate action proposing limited
disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of
a number of states, EPA noted that these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
states relied on the trading programs of
CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement
and the requirement for a LTS sufficient
to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See
76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In
that action, EPA proposed a limited
disapproval of Mississippi’s regional
haze SIP submittal insofar as the SIP
relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is
not taking action on that aspect of
Mississippi’s regional haze SIP in this
action. Comments on the December 30,
2011, proposed determination are
accepted at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2011–0729. The comment period
for EPA’s December 30, 2011, proposed
rulemaking is scheduled to end on
February 28, 2012.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With
Federal and State Control Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the
regional haze technical analyses was
developed by VISTAS with assistance
from Mississippi. The 2018 emissions
inventory was developed by projecting
2002 emissions and applying emissions
reductions expected from federal and
state regulations affecting the emissions
of VOC and the visibility-impairing
pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The
BART Guidelines direct states to
exercise judgment in deciding whether
VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their
Class I area(s). As discussed further in
section IV.B.3, VISTAS performed
modeling sensitivity analyses, which
demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of VOC and NH3 do not
significantly impair visibility in the
VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions
inventories were also developed for NH3
and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC
reductions were incorporated into
Mississippi’s regional haze analyses,
Mississippi did not further evaluate NH3
and VOC emissions sources for potential
controls under BART or reasonable
progress.
VISTAS developed emissions for five
inventory source classifications:
stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and
biogenic sources. Stationary point
sources are those sources that emit
greater than a specified tonnage per
year, depending on the pollutant, with
data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those
sources whose individual emissions are
relatively small, but due to the large
number of these sources, the collective
emissions from the source category
could be significant. VISTAS estimated
emissions on a countywide level for the
inventory categories of: (a) Stationary
area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road)
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can
move but does not use the roadways);
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11885
and (c) biogenic sources (which are
natural sources of emissions, such as
trees). On-road mobile source emissions
are estimated by vehicle type and road
type, and are summed to the
countywide level.
There are many federal and state
control programs being implemented
that VISTAS and Mississippi anticipate
will reduce emissions between the end
of the baseline period and 2018.
Emissions reductions from these control
programs are projected to achieve
substantial visibility improvement by
2018 in the Class I areas in surrounding
states. The control programs relied upon
by Mississippi include CAIR; EPA’s
NOX SIP Call; North Carolina’s Clean
Smokestacks Act; Georgia multipollutant rule; consent decrees for
Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and
Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant
Crist, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative—Cooper and Spurlock
stations, and American Electric Power;
NOX and/or VOC reductions from the
control rules in
1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta,
Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky;
North Carolina’s NOX Reasonably
Available Control Technology; state rule
for Philip Morris USA and Norandal
USA in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock
Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area; federal 2007 heavy duty diesel
engine standards for on-road trucks and
buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for
on-road vehicles; federal large spark
ignition and recreational vehicle
controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel
rules. Controls from various federal
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) rules were also
utilized in the development of the 2018
emissions inventory projections. These
MACT rules include the industrial
boiler/process heater MACT (referred to
as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the
combustion turbine and reciprocating
internal combustion engines MACTs,
and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year
MACT standards.
Effective July 30, 2007, the DC Circuit
mandated the vacatur and remand of the
Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.8 This
MACT was vacated since it was directly
affected by the vacatur and remand of
the Commercial and Industrial Solid
Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT
rule to address the vacatur on June 4,
2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final
rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608).
The VISTAS modeling included
emissions reductions from the vacated
Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and
8 See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir.
2007).
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11886
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Mississippi did not redo its modeling
analysis when the rule was re-issued.
Even though Mississippi’s modeling is
based on the vacated Industrial Boiler
MACT limits, the State’s modeling
conclusions are unlikely to be affected
because the expected reductions due to
the vacated rule were relatively small
compared to the State’s total SO2, PM2.5,
and coarse particulate matter (PM10)
emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.2
percent, depending on the pollutant, of
the projected 2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10
inventory). Thus, EPA does not expect
that differences between the vacated
and final Industrial Boiler MACT
emissions limits would affect the
adequacy of the existing Mississippi
regional haze SIP. If there is a need to
address discrepancies between
projected emissions reductions from the
vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the
Industrial Boiler MACT issued March
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects
Mississippi to do so in the State’s fiveyear progress report.
Below in Tables 2 and 3 are
summaries of the 2002 baseline and
2018 estimated emissions inventories
for Mississippi (based on the data in the
State’s September 22, 2008, submittal).
TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[Tons per year]
VOC
NOX
Point .........................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................................................................
43,852
131,808
86,811
41,081
104,661
4,200
110,672
88,787
Total ..................................................................................................
303,552
308,320
PM2.5
PM10
NH3
SO2
11,044
50,401
2,089
4,690
21,106
343,377
2,828
5,010
1,359
58,721
3,549
23
103,389
771
4,566
11,315
68,224
372,321
63,652
120,041
PM10
NH3
SO2
TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI
[Tons per year]
PM2.5
NOX
Point .........................................................................................................
Area ..........................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile .......................................................................................
Non-Road Mobile .....................................................................................
46,452
140,134
31,306
28,842
71,804
4,483
30,259
68,252
17,172
53,222
810
3,203
30,046
375,495
1,607
3,452
1,591
69,910
4,520
29
54,367
746
435
6,638
Total ..................................................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VOC
246,734
174,798
74,407
410,600
76,050
62,186
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and
Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
VISTAS performed modeling for the
regional haze LTS for the 10
southeastern states, including
Mississippi. The modeling analysis is a
complex technical evaluation that began
with selection of the modeling system.
VISTAS used the following modeling
system:
• Meteorological Model: The
Pennsylvania State University/National
Center for Atmospheric Research
Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a
nonhydrostatic, prognostic,
meteorological model routinely used for
urban- and regional-scale
photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze
regulatory modeling studies.
• Emissions Model: The Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
modeling system is an emissions
modeling system that generates hourly
gridded speciated emissions inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point,
fire, and biogenic emissions sources for
photochemical grid models.
• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s
Models-3/Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a
photochemical grid model capable of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and
acid deposition at a regional scale. The
photochemical model selected for this
study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was
modified through VISTAS with a
module for Secondary Organics
Aerosols in an open and transparent
manner that was also subjected to
outside peer review.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in
the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018
was carried out on a grid of 12x12
kilometer cells that covers the 10
VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, West Virginia) and states
adjacent to them. This grid is nested
within a larger national CMAQ
modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid
cells that covers the continental United
States, portions of Canada and Mexico,
and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts.
Selection of a representative period of
meteorology is crucial for evaluating
baseline air quality conditions and
projecting future changes in air quality
due to changes in emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS
conducted an in-depth analysis which
resulted in the selection of the entire
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as
the best period of meteorology available
for conducting the CMAQ modeling.
The VISTAS states modeling was
developed consistent with EPA’s
Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
located at https://www.epa.gov/
scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002),
April 2007, and EPA document,
Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations, located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/
eiguid/, EPA–454/R–05–001,
August 2005, updated November 2005
(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’).
VISTAS examined the model
performance of the regional modeling
for the areas of interest before
determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the
regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The
modeling assessment predicts future
levels of emissions and visibility
impairment used to support the LTS
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and to compare predicted, modeled
visibility levels with those on the
uniform rate of progress. In keeping
with the objective of the CMAQ
modeling platform, the air quality
model performance was evaluated using
graphical and statistical assessments
based on measured ozone, fine particles,
and acid deposition from various
monitoring networks and databases for
the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a
diverse set of statistical parameters from
EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling
inputs. Once VISTAS determined the
model performance to be acceptable,
VISTAS used the model to assess the
2018 RPGs using the current and future
year air quality modeling predictions,
and compared the RPGs to the uniform
rate of progress for Class I areas in the
states neighboring Mississippi.
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3), the State of Mississippi
provided the appropriate supporting
documentation to VISTAS and
coordinated with other affected states
for all required analyses since there are
no Class I areas in Mississippi.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility
Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
An important step toward identifying
reasonable progress measures is to
identify the key pollutants contributing
to visibility impairment at each Class I
area. To understand the relative benefit
of further reducing emissions from
different pollutants, source sectors, and
geographic areas, VISTAS developed
emissions sensitivity model runs using
CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air
quality impacts from various groups of
emissions and pollutant scenarios in the
Class I areas on the 20 percent worst
visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most
significantly impacting visibility in the
VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution
assessment, based on IMPROVE
monitoring data, demonstrated that
ammonium sulfate is the major
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility
impairment at Class I areas in the
VISTAS and neighboring states. On the
20 percent worst visibility days in
2000–2004, ammonium sulfate
accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the
calculated light extinction at the inland
Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74
percent of the calculated light extinction
for all but one of the coastal Class I areas
in the VISTAS states. In contrast,
ammonium nitrate contributed less than
five percent of the calculated light
extinction at the VISTAS Class I areas
on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
Particulate organic matter (organic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
carbon) accounted for 20 percent or less
of the light extinction on the 20 percent
worst visibility days at the VISTAS
Class I areas.
VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas
into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or
‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as
‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/
similar characteristics (e.g., terrain,
geography, meteorology), to better
represent variations in model sensitivity
and performance within the VISTAS
region, and to describe the common
factors influencing visibility conditions
in the two types of Class I areas.
Results from VISTAS’ emissions
sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate
particles resulting from SO2 emissions
are the dominant contributor to
visibility impairment on the 20 percent
worst days at all Class I areas in
VISTAS. Mississippi concluded that
reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and
non-EGU point sources would have the
greatest visibility benefits for the Class
I areas impacted by Mississippi sources.
Because ammonium nitrate is a small
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility
impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at the inland Class I areas in
VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOX
and NH3 emissions at these sites are
small.
The VISTAS sensitivity analyses
show that VOC emissions from biogenic
sources such as vegetation also
contribute to visibility impairment.
However, control of these biogenic
sources of VOC would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible. The
anthropogenic sources of VOC
emissions are minor compared to the
biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling
anthropogenic sources of VOC
emissions would have little if any
visibility benefits at the Class I areas in
and adjacent to the VISTAS region. The
sensitivity analyses also show that
reducing primary carbon from point
sources, ground level sources, or fires is
projected to have small to no visibility
benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas.
Mississippi considered the factors
listed in under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)
and in section III.E of this action to
develop its LTS as described below.
Mississippi, in conjunction with
VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that
elemental carbon (a product of highway
and non-road diesel engines,
agricultural burning, prescribed fires,
and wildfires), fine soils (a product of
construction activities and activities
that generate fugitive dust), and
ammonia are relatively minor
contributors to visibility impairment at
the Class I areas in states near to
Mississippi. Mississippi considered
agricultural and forestry smoke
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11887
management techniques to address
visibility impacts from elemental
carbon. Mississippi has drafted but not
finalized a Smoke Management Plan
that addresses the issues laid out in the
EPA’s 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy
on Wildland and Prescribed Fires
available at: https://www.epa.gov/
ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf.
Under current smoke management
practices, the Mississippi Forestry
Commission, in conjunction with
MDEQ, issues burning permits based on
daily weather forecasts. A permit is
required for any fire set for a recognized
agricultural or forestry purpose. With
regard to fine soils, the State considered
those activities that generate fugitive
dust, including construction activities.
Mississippi has no specific provisions to
mitigate dust emissions from
construction activities. However, there
are nuisance provisions in State
regulations that would apply if
construction or other activities were
generating significant emissions. Given
the distance of the closest Class I area
(Breton) to Mississippi, the nuisance
provisions may provide adequate
control from these activities. With
regard to ammonia, the State has chosen
not to develop controls for ammonia
emissions from Mississippi sources in
this first implementation period because
of their relatively minor contribution to
visibility impairment.
EPA preliminarily concurs with the
State’s technical demonstration showing
that elemental carbon, fine soils, and
ammonia are not significant
contributors to visibility in any Class I
area, and therefore, proposes to find that
Mississippi has adequately satisfied 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
The emissions sensitivity analyses
conducted by VISTAS predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU
and non-EGU industrial point sources
will result in the greatest improvements
in visibility in the Class I areas in the
VISTAS region, more than any other
visibility-impairing pollutant.
Additional, smaller benefits are
projected from SO2 emissions
reductions from non-utility industrial
point sources. SO2 emissions
contributions to visibility impairment
from other RPO regions are
comparatively small in contrast to the
VISTAS states’ contributions and, thus,
controlling sources outside of the
VISTAS region is predicted to provide
less significant improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.
SO2 sources for which it is
demonstrated that no additional
controls are reasonable in this current
implementation period will not be
exempted from future assessments for
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11888
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
controls in subsequent implementation
periods or, when appropriate, from the
five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future
implementation periods, additional
controls on these SO2 sources evaluated
in the first implementation period may
be determined to be reasonable, based
on a reasonable progress control
evaluation, for continued progress
toward natural conditions for the 20
percent worst days and to avoid further
degradation of the 20 percent best days.
Similarly, in subsequent
implementation periods, the State may
use different criteria for identifying
sources for evaluation and may consider
other pollutants as visibility conditions
change over time.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources to
Evaluate for Reasonable Progress
Controls in Mississippi and
Surrounding Areas
As discussed in section IV.B.3. of this
action, through comprehensive
evaluations by VISTAS and the
Southern Appalachian Mountains
Initiative (SAMI),9 the VISTAS states
concluded that sulfate particles
resulting from SO2 emissions account
for the greatest portion of the regional
haze affecting the Class I areas in
VISTAS region and surrounding states.
Utility and non-utility boilers are the
main sources of SO2 emissions within
the southeastern United States. VISTAS
developed a methodology for the
VISTAS states, which enables the states
to focus their reasonable progress
analyses on those geographic regions
and source categories that impact
visibility at these states’ Class I areas.
The state in which a Class I area is
located is responsible for determining
which sources, both inside and outside
of that state, to evaluate for reasonable
progress controls. Although Mississippi
has no Class I areas, at the time VISTAS
was performing this analysis, many of
the surrounding states had not finalized
what methodology they would use to
prioritize and identify potential sources
for reasonable progress evaluation. To
assist the State to identify potential
emissions units that might be raised
during the consultation process with
these other states, MDEQ applied the
9 Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated
in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and
recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing
and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’
States cooperated with FLMs, the EPA, industry,
environmental organizations, and academia to
complete a technical assessment of the impacts of
acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on
sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians.
The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August
2002.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
VISTAS methodology to identify
emissions units that could potentially
warrant further analysis based on their
impacts on nearby Class I areas in
neighboring states.
The State established a threshold to
determine which emissions units may
be identified by neighboring states with
Class I areas to be evaluated for
potential reasonable progress control
depending on those states’ criteria for
evaluation. In applying this
methodology, MDEQ first calculated the
fractional contribution to visibility
impairment from all emissions units
within the SO2 AOI for those
surrounding Class I areas in other states
potentially impacted by emissions from
emissions units in Mississippi. The
State then identified those emissions
units with a contribution of one percent
or more to the visibility impairment at
that particular Class I area, and
evaluated each of these units for control
measures for reasonable progress, using
the following four ‘‘reasonable progress
factors’’ as required under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) Cost of
compliance; (2) time necessary for
compliance; (3) energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; and (4) remaining useful
life of the emissions unit.
Mississippi’s SO2 AOI methodology
identified two sources that might
potentially impact the Breton Class I
area: Mississippi Power Company—
Plant Watson and the DuPont Delisle
facility, both in Harrison County. Since
the time of Mississippi’s original 2008
SIP submittal, Louisiana completed and
submitted a regional haze SIP to address
visibility at Breton. Neither Plant
Watson nor the DuPont DeLisle facility
were identified by Louisiana in
consultations with Mississippi or in the
Louisiana regional haze SIP as sources
identified for reasonable progress
control evaluation as sources potentially
impacting Breton. Consequently,
Mississippi determined that no further
control analysis was necessary at these
facilities at this time and no controls
were adopted for reasonable progress for
Mississippi Power Company—Plant
Watson or the DuPont DeLisle facility
during this implementation period.
Mississippi will continue to consult
with Louisiana to assess the potential
impact of facilities in Mississippi to
help meet the visibility goals for Breton
for future implementation periods.
Consistent with EPA’s Reasonable
Progress Guidance, since the Breton
Class I area is in Louisiana, EPA is
proposing to find that Mississippi
appropriately relied on Louisiana’s
determination of which sources to
prioritize for reasonable progress control
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
evaluation during this implementation
period.
5. BART
BART is an element of Mississippi’s
LTS for the first implementation period.
The BART evaluation process consists
of three components: (a) An
identification of all the BART-eligible
sources, (b) an assessment of whether
the BART-eligible sources are subject to
BART and (c) a determination of the
BART controls. These components, as
addressed by MDEQ and MDEQ’s
findings, are discussed as follows.
A. BART-Eligible Sources
The first phase of a BART evaluation
is to identify all the BART-eligible
sources within the State’s boundaries.
MDEQ identified the BART-eligible
sources in Mississippi by utilizing the
three eligibility criteria in the BART
Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or
more emissions units at the facility fit
within one of the 26 categories listed in
the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions
units were not in operation prior to
August 7, 1962, and were in existence
on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units
have the potential to emit 250 tons or
more per year of any visibility-impairing
pollutant.
The BART Guidelines also direct
states to address SO2, NOX, and direct
PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5)
emissions as visibility-impairment
pollutants, and to exercise judgment in
determining whether VOC or ammonia
emissions from a source impair
visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160.
VISTAS modeling demonstrated that
VOC from anthropogenic sources and
ammonia from point sources are not
significant visibility-impairing
pollutants in Mississippi, as discussed
in section IV.B.3. of this action. MDEQ
has determined, based on the VISTAS
modeling, that ammonia emissions from
the State’s point sources are not
anticipated to cause or contribute
significantly to any impairment of
visibility in Class I areas and should be
exempt for BART purposes.
B. BART-Subject Sources
The second phase of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area,
i.e., those sources that are subject to
BART. The BART Guidelines allow
states to consider exempting some
BART-eligible sources from further
BART review because they may not
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, Mississippi required
each of its BART-eligible sources to
develop and submit dispersion
modeling to assess the extent of their
contribution to visibility impairment at
surrounding Class I areas.
1. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines allow states to
use the CALPUFF 10 modeling system
(CALPUFF) or another appropriate
model to predict the visibility impacts
from a single source on a Class I area,
and therefore, to determine whether an
individual source is anticipated to cause
or contribute to impairment of visibility
in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to
BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA
believes that CALPUFF is the best
regulatory modeling application
currently available for predicting a
single source’s contribution to visibility
impairment (70 FR 39162). Mississippi,
in coordination with VISTAS, used the
CALPUFF modeling system to
determine whether individual sources
in Mississippi were subject to or exempt
from BART.
The BART Guidelines also
recommend that states develop a
modeling protocol for making
individual source attributions and
suggest that states may want to consult
with EPA and their RPO to address any
issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS
states, including Mississippi, developed
a ‘‘Protocol for the Application of
CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs,
industrial sources, trade groups, and
other interested parties, actively
participated in the development and
review of the VISTAS protocol.
VISTAS developed a post-processing
approach to use the new IMPROVE
equation with the CALPUFF model
results so that the BART analyses could
consider both the old and new
IMPROVE equations. The choice
between use of the old or the new
equation for calculating the visibility
metrics for each Class I area is made by
the state in which the Class I area is
located. Mississippi allowed the use of
the new IMPROVE equation in
performing the screening analysis. The
States of Alabama, Arkansas, and
Louisiana, whose Class I areas were
potentially impacted by Mississippi’s
BART sources, also allowed the use of
the new IMPROVE equation for BART
analyses.
2. Contribution Threshold
For states using modeling to
determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines
note that the first step is to set a
contribution threshold to assess whether
the impact of a single source is
sufficient to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at a Class I area.
The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a]
single source that is responsible for a 1.0
deciview change or more should be
considered to ‘cause’ visibility
impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines
also state that ‘‘the appropriate
threshold for determining whether a
source ‘contributes to visibility
impairment’ may reasonably differ
across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general
matter, any threshold that you use for
11889
determining whether a source
‘contributes’ to visibility impairment
should not be higher than 0.5
deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that
states are free to use a lower threshold
if they conclude that the location of a
large number of BART-eligible sources
in proximity of a Class I area justifies
this approach.
Mississippi used a contribution
threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject
to BART. The State concluded that the
threshold of 0.5 deciview, which is the
highest level allowed by the BART
Guidelines, was appropriate in this
situation. This threshold of 0.5 deciview
was also used by the surrounding states
with Class I areas that sources in
Mississippi could impact. MDEQ
concluded that a 0.5 deciview threshold
was appropriate in this instance. EPA is
proposing to agree with Mississippi that
the overall impacts of its BART-eligible
sources are not sufficient to warrant a
lower contribution threshold and that a
0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate
in this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to
BART
Mississippi initially identified 15
facilities with BART-eligible sources.
The State subsequently determined that
13 of these sources are exempt from
being considered subject to BART. Table
5 identifies the 15 BART-eligible
sources located in Mississippi and, of
these, lists the two sources subject to
BART.
TABLE 5—MISSISSIPPI BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART:
Chevron Products Company, Pascagoula Refinery
Mississippi Phosphates Corporation (MPC)
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART:
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources: 11
Entergy Mississippi Inc, Baxter Wilson Plant
Entergy Mississippi Inc, Gerald Andrus Plant
Mississippi Power Company, Chevron Cogenerating Plant
Mississippi Power Company, Plant Jack Watson
Mississippi Power Company, Plant Victor J Daniel
South Mississippi Electric Power Association, Moselle Plant: 12
South Mississippi Electric Power Association, R D Morrow Plant: 13
Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt Sources
Georgia Pacific Corp, Monticello Mill
Greenwood Utilities, Henderson Station
Holcim US Inc.
10 Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF
encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system,
which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post
processors. The different versions of CALPUFF
have corresponding versions of CALMET,
CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with
previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer
version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
of the CALPUFF modeling system are available
from the model developer on the following Web
site: https://www.src.com/verio/download/
download.htm.
11 EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions.
The State relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2
and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2
and NOX were not analyzed.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12 The facility met model plant criteria as
provided for in the BART Guidelines for PM
emissions only. No further modeling was
performed.
13 Ibid.
14 The facility met the model plant criteria as
provided for in the BART Guidelines for PM
emissions only. No further modeling was
performed.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11890
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—MISSISSIPPI BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES—Continued
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
International Paper Company, Vicksburg Mill
Pursue Energy Corp, Thomasville Gas Plant
Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc, Yazoo City: 14
Two of the eight non-EGU facilities,
Chevron Products Company—
Pascagoula Refinery and MPC, were
determined to be ‘‘subject to BART’’ and
were required to perform an engineering
analysis, which included an analysis of
the five CAA BART factors, their
evaluation of potential BART options,
and proposed BART determinations. Six
of the non-EGU sources demonstrated
that they are exempt from being subject
to BART. Three of these facilities,
Georgia Pacific Corp—Monticello Mill,
Holcim US Inc., and International Paper
Company—Vicksburg Mill, modeled
visibility impacts of less than 0.5
deciview at the affected Class I areas.
This modeling involved assessing the
visibility impact of emissions of NOX,
SO2, and PM10 as applicable to
individual facilities. The remaining
facility, Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc.
in Yazoo City, met the model plant
criteria for exempting out of BART
certain BART-eligible sources that share
specific characteristics as allowed by
EPA’s BART Guidelines (70 FR 39163)
and no further modeling was required.
All seven BART-eligible EGUs relied
on Mississippi’s decision to rely upon
CAIR emissions limits for SO2 and NOX
to satisfy their obligation to comply
with BART requirements in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore,
these EGU sources only modeled PM10
emissions. Five of the seven EGUs
provided modeling demonstrating that
their PM10 emissions do not contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. Two of the facilities, South
Mississippi Electric Power
Association—Moselle Plant and South
Mississippi Electric Power
Association—R D Morrow Plant, met the
model plant criteria in EPA’s BART
Guidelines (70 FR 39163) based on PM
emissions only and no further modeling
was required.
Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s
reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for
NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs
was fully approvable and in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the
BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for
NOX and SO2 and other provisions in
this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In
a separate action, EPA has proposed a
limited disapproval of the Mississippi
regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State’s regional haze
SIP submittal arising from the remand
by the D.C. Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not
taking action in this notice to address
the state’s reliance on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements,
including BART for SO2 and NOX
emissions from EGUs.
States such as Mississippi that are
subject to the requirements of the
Transport Rule trading program only for
NOX must still address BART for SO2
and other visibility impairing
pollutants. See 76 FR at 82224. While
EPA proposed on December 30, 2011, to
issue a FIP to address the deficiencies
in Mississippi’s SIP associated with the
BART requirements for NOX for EGUs
based on EPA’s proposed revisions to
the RHR allowing states to substitute
participation in the trading programs
under the Transport Rule for sourcespecific BART, EPA did not propose a
plan to address the deficiencies
associated with the BART requirements
for SO2 since the Transport Rule does
not cover SO2 emissions from
Mississippi EGUs. Because Mississippi
also relied on CAIR in assessing the
need for emissions reductions for SO2
from EGUs to satisfy BART, the State
will have to re-evaluate EGUs with
respect to SO2 BART requirements. If
EPA finalizes the limited disapproval
for Mississippi’s reliance on CAIR to
satisfy the regional haze SIP
requirements for SO2, that action will
trigger a 24-month clock for EPA to
either implement a FIP to address those
requirements or approve a revised SIP
from the State that addresses SO2 BART
for its EGUs.
C. BART Determinations
Two BART-eligible non-EGU sources
(i.e., Chevron Products Company—
Pascagoula Refinery and MPC) had
modeled visibility impacts of more than
the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART
exemption. These two facilities are
therefore considered to be subject to
BART and, consequently, were required
to perform an engineering analysis,
which included an analysis of the five
CAA BART factors, their evaluation of
potential BART options, and proposed
BART determinations.
In accordance with the BART
Guidelines, to determine the level of
control that represents BART for each
source, the State first reviewed existing
controls on these units to assess
whether these constituted the best
controls currently available, then
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
identified what other technically
feasible controls are available, and
finally, evaluated the technically
feasible controls using the five BART
statutory factors. The State’s evaluations
and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment,
are summarized below.
1. Chevron Products Company—
Pascagoula Refinery
The modeled visibility impact
resulting from Chevron Refinery’s
emissions was 3.89 deciview at Breton.
As stated in the State’s submittal,
Chevron has significant emissions
reductions planned due to permitted
projects that are currently or will soon
be underway and to an enforcement
consent decree issued June 7, 2005. As
a result of ongoing and planned
projects, emissions of NOX from BART
eligible sources will be reduced from
1,480 pounds per hour (lb/hr) to 521 lb/
hr, SO2 emissions will be reduced from
3,154 lb/hr to 248 lb/hr, and PM10
emissions will be reduced from 187 lb/
hr to 146 lb/hr.
For SO2, the units affected by the 2005
consent decree emitted 3,032.7 lb/hr
daily maximum average from 2001–
2003, which will be reduced by 2,884.3
lb/hr of SO2. The units involved in
Chevron’s consent decree contribute 96
percent of the SO2 emissions for the
refinery’s BART-eligible sources. The
consent decree will reduce NOX by 960
lb/hr and PM10 by 41 lb/hr with a
modeled visibility improvement of 2.99
deciview at Breton.
Mississippi evaluated three additional
control options, two affecting specific
NOX generating units and one for
additional SO2 control. The first option
(Option 1) was to install ultra-low NOX
burners (ULNB) on three of the largest
emissions units. These units are the
Crude Unit 1 Vacuum Furnace (F–1102),
the Crude Unit 1 Atmospheric Furnace
(F–1101), and the Rheniformer I Reactor
Furnaces (F–1501/2/3). This option
could reduce NOX emissions from these
sources from 139 lb/hr to 38 lb/hr, a
reduction of 101 lb/hr, and total refinery
BART-eligible source NOX emissions
would be reduced by 17 percent from
the currently planned future emissions.
The second option (Option 2) was to
also install ULNB in the Hydrogen Plant
No. 2 (F–6410) process heater. This
source has a relatively high NOX
emissions rate before control on a lb/hr
basis. However, the combustion air for
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
this process heater is the flue gas from
the associated gas turbine. The ULNBs
would only control NOX formed in the
furnace. Therefore, the estimated NOX
emissions reduction is 50 percent. This
option would reduce NOX emissions
from this source from 148 lb/hr to 74 lb/
hr, a reduction of 74 lb/hr. By installing
ULNB in the two crude units,
Rhenformer I and the hydrogen plant,
total refinery BART-eligible source NOX
emissions could be reduced by 31
percent from the currently planned
future emissions. All the other NOX
sources have relatively small emissions.
A third option (Option 3) considered
to reduce SO2 emissions is to decrease
the sulfur content of the refinery fuel
gas. Currently, the hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) content of the refinery fuel gas is
controlled to approximately 50 part per
million by volume (ppmv), which is
well below the New Source Performance
Standard emissions limit of 162 ppmv
of H2S. However, the refinery fuel gas
also contains approximately 100 ppmv
of non-H2S sulfur compounds such as
various mercaptans. The Merox process
could be used to reduce the mercaptan
content of the refinery fuel gas. In this
process, the mercaptans are removed
with caustic-containing Merox catalyst.
Mercaptans in the rich caustic are
oxidized with air to disulfides that are
decanted. The regenerated caustic is
recycled. For this analysis, 90 percent
control of mercaptans was assumed.
This option would reduce SO2
emissions from 248 lb/hr to 189 lb/hr.
For PM10, MDEQ determined that
there are no available additional
controls for refinery fuel gas
combustion. Most of the other
remaining BART PM10 emissions are
refinery fuel gas combustion emissions,
which comprise a small fraction of the
facility’s total BART PM10 emissions.
Capital costs range from $8.6 million
for Option 1 to $40.6 million for Option
3. Annual operating costs range from
$1.3 million per year (yr) to $5.9
million/yr. Future emissions controls
already planned will reduce the number
of days greater than 1.0 deciview at
Breton from 58 days to 71 days to only
one to five days, depending upon the
year modeled. Similar results for the
eighth highest delta deciview show a
reduction from a range of 2.9 deciviews
to 3.9 deciviews for the baseline case to
only 0.7 deciview to 0.9 deciview for
the future planned case. The additional
emissions reductions from the three
control options beyond the already
planned emissions reductions will
provide only very small additional
visibility improvements, ranging from
0.043 deciview for Option 1 to 0.16
deciview for Option 3. For each option,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
the total cost effectiveness and
incremental cost effectiveness exceed
$29 million/deciview. Mississippi
determined that these further reductions
would be very costly without significant
visibility improvement. Therefore,
MDEQ determined that these options
are not BART due to the high cost for
small visibility gains. Mississippi has
determined that the emissions controls
and resulting reductions from the
consent decree constitute BART.
2. MPC
On November 9, 2010, MPC was
issued a Permit to Construct Air
Emissions Equipment that included Best
Available Control Technology (BACT)
emissions limits for SO2 and sulfuric
acid mist (H2SO4). With this project,
MPC is making many upgrades,
including replacing the absorption
towers, installing new economizers and
new superheaters, replacing duct work
and piping, relocating new or
refurbished acid coolers (i.e., heat
exchangers), repairing the cooling
tower, and replacing the vanadium
catalyst with cesium catalyst in the
third and fourth converter passes. These
upgrades will not result in increased
sulfuric acid production capacity,
which is currently permitted at 1,800
tons per day per sulfuric acid plant, but
should allow for significant decreases in
down-time due to more reliable
operation of the plants. This will result
in an actual-to-potential increase in tons
per year (tpy) of SO2; however, the
project will result in greater emissions
controls and lower permitted short-term
and annual emissions for both
pollutants.
BACT for SO2 was determined to be
the replacement of vanadium catalyst
with cesium catalyst in the third and
fourth converter passes. The permitted
SO2 limit is 3.0 pounds (lb) of SO2 per
ton of sulfuric acid produced, not to
exceed 225 lb/hr SO2 and 1,700 tpy SO2.
MDEQ considers this emissions limit
appropriate as meeting BART for this
source.
BACT for H2SO4 was determined to be
the installation of vertical tube mist
eliminators in the interpass absorption
tower. The final absorption tower
already has these mist eliminators
installed. MPC is also replacing the
economizer prior to the final absorption
tower with a larger one which will have
the effect of lowering the exhaust gas
temperature and thus, reducing H2SO4
emissions. The permitted H2SO4 limit is
0.10 lb H2SO4 per ton of sulfuric acid
produced, not to exceed 7.5 lb/hr H2SO4
and 32.85 tpy H2SO4. MDEQ considers
this emissions limit appropriate as
meeting BART for this source.
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11891
3. EPA Assessment
EPA proposes to agree with
Mississippi’s analyses and conclusions
for the two BART-subject EGU sources
described above. EPA has reviewed the
State’s analyses and proposes to
conclude that they were conducted in a
manner that is consistent with EPA’s
BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual (https://
www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#
cccinfo). While lower emissions limits
have been determined to be BACT for
sulfuric acid plants at other facilities,
both BACT and BART are case-by-case
determinations. The BACT analysis
appropriately documented that the
limited additional capacities and
configuration of catalyst beds for MPC’s
facility limited its ability to achieve
reductions similar to those achieved at
other facilities.
4. Enforceability of Emissions Limits
The BART determinations for each of
the facilities discussed above and the
resulting emissions limits are adopted
by Mississippi into the State’s regional
haze SIP submittal. The limits are also
in consent decrees and will be included
in the facilities’ title V permits. A copy
of the consent decree for Chevron
Products Company—Pascagoula
Refinery was included in Appendix L of
the Mississippi regional haze submittal
for informational purposes. A copy of
the construction permit issued for MPC
on November 9, 2010, was included in
Mississippi’s supplemental submittal of
May 9, 2011, for informational
purposes.
C. Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Requirements
EPA’s visibility regulations direct
states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and
monitoring provisions with those for
regional haze, as explained in sections
III.F and III.G of this action. Under
EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI
portion of a state SIP must address any
integral vistas identified by the FLMs
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a
‘‘view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I Federal area of a
specific landmark or panorama located
outside the boundary of the mandatory
Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any
mandatory Class I area includes any
integral vista associated with that area.
Since there are no Class I areas in
Mississippi, no integral vistas in
Mississippi have been identified. In
addition, none of its sources are affected
by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the
Mississippi regional haze SIP submittal
does not explicitly address the two
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11892
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements regarding coordination of
the regional haze with the RAVI LTS
and monitoring provisions.
In the State’s submittal, MDEQ
updated its visibility monitoring
program and developed a LTS to
address regional haze. Also in this
submittal, MDEQ affirmed its
commitment to complete items required
in the future under EPA’s RHR.
Specifically, MDEQ made a
commitment to review and revise its
regional haze implementation plan and
submit a plan revision to EPA by July
31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance
with the requirements listed in 40 CFR
51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze
regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the
RAVI LTS regulations, MDEQ made a
commitment to submit a report to EPA
on progress towards the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I area located outside
Mississippi which may be affected by
emissions from within Mississippi. The
progress report is required to be in the
form of a SIP revision and is due every
five years following the initial submittal
of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with
EPA’s monitoring regulations for RAVI
and regional haze, Mississippi will rely
on the IMPROVE network for
compliance purposes, in addition to any
RAVI monitoring that may be needed in
the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4). Since there are no Class I
areas in Mississippi, the State also
commits to ongoing consultation with
the FLMs throughout the
implementation process, including
annual discussion of the
implementation process and the most
recent IMPROVE monitoring data and
VIEWS data.
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
The primary monitoring network for
regional haze in Mississippi is the
IMPROVE network. There are currently
no IMPROVE sites in Mississippi, since
it has no Class I areas. In the submittal,
Mississippi states its intention to
continue to consult with the FLM
annually on monitoring data from the
IMPROVE network for Class I areas in
adjacent states that might be affected by
Mississippi sources.
Data produced by the IMPROVE
monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year
progress reports and the 10-year SIP
revisions, each of which relies on
analysis of the preceding five years of
data. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web
site has been maintained by VISTAS
and the other RPOs to provide ready
access to the IMPROVE data and data
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
analysis tools. Mississippi is
encouraging VISTAS and the other
RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a
similar data management system to
facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.
E. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
In December 2006 and in May 2007,
the State Air Directors from the VISTAS
states held formal interstate
consultation meetings. The purpose of
the meetings was to discuss the
methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for
reasonable progress. The states invited
FLM and EPA representatives to
participate and to provide additional
feedback. The Directors discussed the
results of analyses showing
contributions to visibility impairment
from states to each of the Class I areas
in the VISTAS region.
Mississippi received letters from
Louisiana and Alabama transmitting
prehearing drafts of their regional haze
SIPs. MDEQ concurred on the RPGs for
the Breton and Sipsey Class I areas, and
committed to continue collaboration
with these states in the preparation of
future VISTAS studies and analyses and
in addressing regional haze issues in
future implementation periods. EPA
proposes to find that Mississippi has
adequately addressed the consultation
requirements in the RHR and
appropriately documented its
consultation with other states in its SIP
submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
Through the VISTAS RPO,
Mississippi and the nine other member
states worked extensively with the
FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the
Interior and Agriculture to develop
technical analyses that support the
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS
states.
MDEQ received comments from the
U.S. Forestry Service (USFS) and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
on the State’s draft regional haze SIP
dated January 10, 2008. Appendix O of
the September 22, 2008, Mississippi
regional haze SIP submittal includes a
summary of the comments from the
FLMs. Most of the comments were
requesting additional information or
discussion on various topics which
were taken into consideration and, for
the most part, included in the final
September 2008 SIP submittal. The
FLMs provided comments about
including in the SIP submittal
discussions on natural background,
uniform rate of progress, and RPGs for
nearby Class I areas in other states. This
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information was not included because
Mississippi believes that is not
necessary or appropriate to present this
information as part of the Mississippi
regional haze SIP.
On March 3, 2011, the USFWS also
provided comments on the draft
supplemental SIP submittal, including
USFWS’ views on BART for MPC and
its concerns that Louisiana’s
methodology for prioritizing sources for
potential reasonable progress control
evaluation did not include Mississippi’s
DuPont DeLisle facility. MDEQ
considered these comments in making
its final determinations.
F. Periodic SIP revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
As also summarized in section IV.C of
this action, consistent with 40 CFR
51.308(g), MDEQ affirmed its
commitment to submitting a progress
report in the form of a SIP revision to
EPA every five years following this
initial submittal of the Mississippi
regional haze SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress made towards the
RPGs for the mandatory Class I areas
located outside Mississippi which may
be affected by emissions from within
Mississippi. Mississippi also offered
recommendations for several technical
improvements that, as funding allows,
can support the State’s next LTS.
If another state’s regional haze SIP
identifies that Mississippi’s SIP needs to
be supplemented or modified, and if,
after appropriate consultation
Mississippi agrees, today’s action may
be revisited, or additional information
and/or changes will be addressed in the
five-year progress report SIP revision.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
of revisions to the Mississippi SIP
submitted by the State of Mississippi on
September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011,
as meeting some of the applicable
regional haze requirements as set forth
in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA
and in 40 CFR 51.300–308, as described
previously in this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ‘‘collections of information’’
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of
information’’ as a requirement for
answers to * * * identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on
ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C.
3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction
Act does not apply to this action.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
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 not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the CAA do not create any new
requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-state relationship under the
CAA, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S.
246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to
accompany any proposed or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that today’s
proposal does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
costs of $100 million or more to either
state, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or
local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
Federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has Federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local
governments, or EPA consults with state
and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
EPA also may not issue a regulation that
has Federalism implications and that
preempts state law unless the Agency
consults with state and local officials
early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
This rule 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, because it
merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11893
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate
environmental health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995
requires Federal agencies to evaluate
existing technical standards when
developing a new regulation. To comply
with NTTAA, EPA must consider and
use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’
(VCS) if available and applicable when
developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to this action. Today’s
action does not require the public to
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11894
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–4661 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785–201041; FRL–
9637–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; South
Carolina; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing a limited
approval of a revision to the South
Carolina state implementation plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of South
Carolina, through the South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on
December 17, 2007, that addresses
regional haze for the first
implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules
that require states to prevent any future
and remedy any existing anthropogenic
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas (national parks and
wilderness areas) caused by emissions
of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographic area
(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze
program’’). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national
goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing a limited approval of this SIP
revision to implement the regional haze
requirements for South Carolina on the
basis that the revision, as a whole,
strengthens the South Carolina SIP.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to
rescind the Federal regulations
previously approved into the South
Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and
November 24, 1987, and to rely on the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
provisions in South Carolina’s
December 17, 2007, SIP submittal to
meet the monitoring and long-term
strategy (LTS) requirements for
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment (RAVI). EPA has previously
proposed a limited disapproval of the
South Carolina regional haze SIP
because of deficiencies in the State’s
regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently,
EPA is not proposing to take action in
this rulemaking to address the State’s
reliance on CAIR to meet certain
regional haze requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2009–0785, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404–562–9019.
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009–
0785.’’ 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 through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
means 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 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, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Notarianni or Sara Waterson,
Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele
Notarianni can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9031 and by
electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone
number (404) 562–9061 and by
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11879-11894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4661]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0784, FRL-9638-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Mississippi; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of two revisions to the
Mississippi state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Mississippi through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) on September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011, that address regional
haze for the first implementation period. These revisions address the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that
require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
(national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing a limited approval of these SIP revisions to implement the
regional haze requirements for Mississippi on the basis that the
revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Mississippi SIP. EPA has
previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Mississippi regional
haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP
submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, EPA is not proposing to take
action in this rulemaking to address the State's reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements.
[[Page 11880]]
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0784, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0784, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2009-0784.'' 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 through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to 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, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Sara
Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by
electronic mail at waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele Notarianni can be
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Mississippi's regional haze submittal?
A. No Affected Class I Areas in Mississippi
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
2. Modeling to Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants,
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in Mississippi and Surrounding Areas
5. BART
C. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
E. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
2. Consultation With the FLMs
F. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of Mississippi's September 22,
2008, and May 9, 2011, SIP revisions addressing regional haze under CAA
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because the revisions as a whole
strengthen the Mississippi SIP. Throughout this document, references to
Mississippi's (or MDEQ's or the State's) ``regional haze SIP'' refer to
Mississippi's original September 22, 2008, regional haze SIP submittal,
as later amended in a SIP revision submitted May 9, 2011. This proposed
rulemaking explains the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval
action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Mississippi regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal
[[Page 11881]]
arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA is not proposing
to take action in today's rulemaking on issues associated with
Mississippi's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP.\2\ Comments on
EPA's proposed limited disapproval of Mississippi's regional haze SIP
are accepted at the docket for EPA's December 20, 2011 rulemaking (see
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729). The comment period for EPA's
December 30, 2011, rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mississippi's SIP revisions rely on CAIR to address BART
requirements related to both nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). However, EPA's replacement rule for
CAIR (i.e., the ``Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule) includes Mississippi only in the trading program
to cover NOX. States such as Mississippi that are subject
to the requirements of the Transport Rule trading program only for
NOX must still address BART for SO2 and other
visibility impairing pollutants. On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed
a limited disapproval of the Mississippi regional haze SIP because
of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising
from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements. In that action, EPA also proposed to issue a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the deficiencies in
Mississippi's SIP associated with the BART requirements for
NOX for electrical generating units (EGUs) based on EPA's
proposed revisions to the RHR allowing states to substitute
participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for
source-specific BART. However, EPA did not propose a plan to address
the deficiencies associated with the BART requirements for
SO2 since the Transport Rule does not cover
SO2 emissions from Mississippi EGUs. Because Mississippi
also relied on CAIR in assessing the need for emissions reductions
for SO2 from EGUs to satisfy BART requirements, the State
will have to re-evaluate EGUs with respect to SO2 BART
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background for 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, color, and visible
distance that one can see. 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 \3\ in many Class I areas
\4\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
\4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 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. See 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 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 area is the responsibility
of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term
``Class I area'' is used in this action, it means a ``mandatory
Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
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 areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. 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 EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of
[[Page 11882]]
regional strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and
other pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments,
tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
III. What are the requirements for Regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA
[[Page 11883]]
Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also
consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or
the ``glidepath'') and the emissions reduction measures needed to
achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP.
Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year
2064 represents a rate of progress which states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve.
In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I
state'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing states,''
i.e., other nearby states with emissions sources that may be affecting
visibility impairment at the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emissions limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required,
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other
types of sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source.
As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 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. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because
CAIR did not address direct emissions of PM, states were still required
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART
for that pollutant. Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand
of the rule to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir.
2008).
EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport
of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219.
Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to
allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under
the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken
final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit
issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit
stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA
is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.
[[Page 11884]]
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other programs
[[Page 11885]]
having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class
I areas.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Mississippi's regional haze submittal?
On September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011, MDEQ submitted revisions to
the Mississippi SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.
A. No Affected Class I Areas in Mississippi
Mississippi has no Class I area within its borders. The following
Class I areas are the closest to the State's boundaries: the Breton
National Wildlife Refuge (Breton) in Louisiana, Sipsey Wilderness Area
(Sipsey) in Alabama, and Caney Creek Wilderness Area (Caney Creek) in
Arkansas. Mississippi is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP
that addresses sources within its borders that affect Class I areas in
other states and for consulting with these other states. The September
22, 2008, Mississippi regional haze SIP, as later amended on May 9,
2011, identified and considered emissions sources within Mississippi
that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas
in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS
RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to
make these determinations, including state-by-state contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the
Class I areas affected by emissions from Mississippi.
B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by a state for
achieving RPGs in Class I areas affected by emissions sources in the
state. Mississippi's LTS for the first implementation period addresses
the emissions reductions from federal, state, and local controls that
take effect in the State from the end of the baseline period starting
in 2004 until 2018. The Mississippi LTS was developed by the State, in
coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an evaluation of the
following components: (1) Identification of the emissions units within
Mississippi and in surrounding states that likely have the largest
impacts currently on visibility at Class I areas in nearby states, and
(2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls
required or expected under federal and state regulations for the 2004-
2018 period (including BART).
In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See
76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA proposed a limited
disapproval of Mississippi's regional haze SIP submittal insofar as the
SIP relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is not taking action on that
aspect of Mississippi's regional haze SIP in this action. Comments on
the December 30, 2011, proposed determination are accepted at Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. The comment period for EPA's December 30,
2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Mississippi. The
2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and
applying emissions reductions expected from federal and state
regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing
pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The BART Guidelines
direct states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and
NH3 impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed
further in section IV.B.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity
analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and
NH3 do not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS
region. Thus, while emissions inventories were also developed for
NH3 and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC reductions were
incorporated into Mississippi's regional haze analyses, Mississippi did
not further evaluate NH3 and VOC emissions sources for
potential controls under BART or reasonable progress.
VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source
classifications: stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year,
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level.
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the
collective emissions from the source category could be significant.
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road)
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use the
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the
countywide level.
There are many federal and state control programs being implemented
that VISTAS and Mississippi anticipate will reduce emissions between
the end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from
these control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility
improvement by 2018 in the Class I areas in surrounding states. The
control programs relied upon by Mississippi include CAIR; EPA's
NOX SIP Call; North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act;
Georgia multi-pollutant rule; consent decrees for Tampa Electric,
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, East
Kentucky Power Cooperative--Cooper and Spurlock stations, and American
Electric Power; NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control
rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern
Kentucky; North Carolina's NOX Reasonably Available Control
Technology; state rule for Philip Morris USA and Norandal USA in the
Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area;
federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for on-road trucks and
buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; federal
large spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-
road diesel rules. Controls from various federal Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) rules were also utilized in the development
of the 2018 emissions inventory projections. These MACT rules include
the industrial boiler/process heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial
Boiler MACT''), the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal
combustion engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT
standards.
Effective July 30, 2007, the DC Circuit mandated the vacatur and
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\8\ This MACT was vacated
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on
June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011
(76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from
the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and
[[Page 11886]]
Mississippi did not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-
issued. Even though Mississippi's modeling is based on the vacated
Industrial Boiler MACT limits, the State's modeling conclusions are
unlikely to be affected because the expected reductions due to the
vacated rule were relatively small compared to the State's total
SO2, PM2.5, and coarse particulate matter
(PM10) emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.2 percent,
depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO2,
PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, EPA does not
expect that differences between the vacated and final Industrial Boiler
MACT emissions limits would affect the adequacy of the existing
Mississippi regional haze SIP. If there is a need to address
discrepancies between projected emissions reductions from the vacated
Industrial Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 21,
2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects Mississippi to do so in the State's
five-year progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below in Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Mississippi (based on the data in
the State's September 22, 2008, submittal).
Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 43,852 104,661 11,044 21,106 1,359 103,389
Area.......................................... 131,808 4,200 50,401 343,377 58,721 771
On-Road Mobile................................ 86,811 110,672 2,089 2,828 3,549 4,566
Non-Road Mobile............................... 41,081 88,787 4,690 5,010 23 11,315
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 303,552 308,320 68,224 372,321 63,652 120,041
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Mississippi
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point......................................... 46,452 71,804 17,172 30,046 1,591 54,367
Area.......................................... 140,134 4,483 53,222 375,495 69,910 746
On-Road Mobile................................ 31,306 30,259 810 1,607 4,520 435
Non-Road Mobile............................... 28,842 68,252 3,203 3,452 29 6,638
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 246,734 174,798 74,407 410,600 76,050 62,186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10
southeastern states, including Mississippi. The modeling analysis is a
complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling
system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic, meteorological model routinely used
for urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM2.5, and
regional haze regulatory modeling studies.
Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that
generates hourly gridded speciated emissions inputs of mobile, non-road
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emissions sources for
photochemical grid models.
Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was
CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was
also subjected to outside peer review.
CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the
10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer grid cells that covers the
continental United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions
of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts.
Selection of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for
evaluating baseline air quality conditions and projecting future
changes in air quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants. VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which
resulted in the selection of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-
December 31) as the best period of meteorology available for conducting
the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS states modeling was developed consistent
with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at https://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-
002), April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/, EPA-454/R-05-001,
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS
[[Page 11887]]
and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those on the
uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the CMAQ
modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress for
Class I areas in the states neighboring Mississippi.
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Mississippi
provided the appropriate supporting documentation to VISTAS and
coordinated with other affected states for all required analyses since
there are no Class I areas in Mississippi.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source
Categories, and Geographic Areas
An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emissions sensitivity model runs
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the
20 percent worst visibility days.
Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the
major contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 75
to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the inland Class I
areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the calculated light
extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I areas in the VISTAS
states. In contrast, ammonium nitrate contributed less than five
percent of the calculated light extinction at the VISTAS Class I areas
on the 20 percent worst visibility days. Particulate organic matter
(organic carbon) accounted for 20 percent or less of the light
extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days at the VISTAS Class
I areas.
VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'')
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain,
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types
of Class I areas.
Results from VISTAS' emissions sensitivity analyses indicate that
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions are the
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS. Mississippi concluded that
reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources
would have the greatest visibility benefits for the Class I areas
impacted by Mississippi sources. Because ammonium nitrate is a small
contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment on the
20 percent worst days at the inland Class I areas in VISTAS, the
benefits of reducing NOX and NH3 emissions at
these sites are small.
The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore,
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little if
any visibility benefits at the Class I areas in and adjacent to the
VISTAS region. The sensitivity analyses also show that reducing primary
carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or fires is projected
to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas.
Mississippi considered the factors listed in under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section III.E of this action to develop its LTS
as described below. Mississippi, in conjunction with VISTAS,
demonstrated in its SIP that elemental carbon (a product of highway and
non-road diesel engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and
wildfires), fine soils (a product of construction activities and
activities that generate fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively
minor contributors to visibility impairment at the Class I areas in
states near to Mississippi. Mississippi considered agricultural and
forestry smoke management techniques to address visibility impacts from
elemental carbon. Mississippi has drafted but not finalized a Smoke
Management Plan that addresses the issues laid out in the EPA's 1998
Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires available
at: https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. Under current
smoke management practices, the Mississippi Forestry Commission, in
conjunction with MDEQ, issues burning permits based on daily weather
forecasts. A permit is required for any fire set for a recognized
agricultural or forestry purpose. With regard to fine soils, the State
considered those activities that generate fugitive dust, including
construction activities. Mississippi has no specific provisions to
mitigate dust emissions from construction activities. However, there
are nuisance provisions in State regulations that would apply if
construction or other activities were generating significant emissions.
Given the distance of the closest Class I area (Breton) to Mississippi,
the nuisance provisions may provide adequate control from these
activities. With regard to ammonia, the State has chosen not to develop
controls for ammonia emissions from Mississippi sources in this first
implementation period because of their relatively minor contribution to
visibility impairment.
EPA preliminarily concurs with the State's technical demonstration
showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not
significant contributors to visibility in any Class I area, and
therefore, proposes to find that Mississippi has adequately satisfied
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that
reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Additional, smaller benefits are projected from
SO2 emissions reductions from non-utility industrial point
sources. SO2 emissions contributions to visibility
impairment from other RPO regions are comparatively small in contrast
to the VISTAS states' contributions and, thus, controlling sources
outside of the VISTAS region is predicted to provide less significant
improvements in visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS.
SO2 sources for which it is demonstrated that no
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation
period will not be exempted from future assessments for
[[Page 11888]]
controls in subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate,
from the five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation
periods, additional controls on these SO2 sources evaluated
in the first implementation period may be determined to be reasonable,
based on a reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued
progress toward natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to
avoid further degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in
subsequent implementation periods, the State may use different criteria
for identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other
pollutants as visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources to Evaluate for Reasonable
Progress Controls in Mississippi and Surrounding Areas
As discussed in section IV.B.3. of this action, through
comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian
Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\9\ the VISTAS states concluded that
sulfate particles resulting from SO2 emissions account for
the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas
in VISTAS region and surrounding states. Utility and non-utility
boilers are the main sources of SO2 emissions within the
southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology for the
VISTAS states, which enables the states to focus their reasonable
progress analyses on those geographic regions and source categories
that impact visibility at these states' Class I areas. The state in
which a Class I area is located is responsible for determining which
sources, both inside and outside of that state, to evaluate for
reasonable progress controls. Although Mississippi has no Class I
areas, at the time VISTAS was performing this analysis, many of the
surrounding states had not finalized what methodology they would use to
prioritize and identify potential sources for reasonable progress
evaluation. To assist the State to identify potential emissions units
that might be raised during the consultation process with these other
states, MDEQ applied the VISTAS methodology to identify emissions units
that could potentially warrant further analysis based on their impacts
on nearby Class I areas in neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated
with FLMs, the EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and
academia to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State established a threshold to determine which emissions
units may be identified by neighboring states with Class I areas to be
evaluated for potential reasonable progress control depending on those
states' criteria for evaluation. In applying this methodology, MDEQ
first calculated the fractional contribution to visibility impairment
from all emissions units within the SO2 AOI for those
surrounding Class I areas in other states potentially impacted by
emissions from emissions units in Mississippi. The State then
identified those emissions units with a contribution of one percent or
more to the visibility impairment at that particular Class I area, and
evaluated each of these units for control measures for reasonable
progress, using the following four ``reasonable progress factors'' as
required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) Cost of compliance; (2)
time necessary for compliance; (3) energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) remaining useful life of
the emissions unit.
Mississippi's SO2 AOI methodology identified two sources
that might potentially impact the Breton Class I area: Mississippi
Power Company--Plant Watson and the DuPont Delisle facility, both in
Harrison County. Since the time of Mississippi's original 2008 SIP
submittal, Louisiana completed and submitted a regional haze SIP to
address visibility at Breton. Neither Plant Watson nor the DuPont
DeLisle facility were identified by Louisiana in consultations with
Mississippi or in the Louisiana regional haze SIP as sources identified
for reasonable progress control evaluation as sources potentially
impacting Breton. Consequently, Mississippi determined that no further
control analysis was necessary at these facilities at this time and no
controls were adopted for reasonable progress for Mississippi Power
Company--Plant Watson or the DuPont DeLisle facility during this
implementation period. Mississippi will continue to consult with
Louisiana to assess the potential impact of facilities in Mississippi
to help meet the visibility goals for Breton for future implementation
periods.
Consistent with EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the
Breton Class I area is in Louisiana, EPA is proposing to find that
Mississippi appropriately relied on Louisiana's determination of which
sources to prioritize for reasonable progress control evaluation during
this implementation period.
5. BART
BART is an element of Mississippi's LTS for the first
implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists of three
components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b)
an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART
and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These components, as
addressed by MDEQ and MDEQ's findings, are discussed as follows.
A. BART-Eligible Sources
The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. MDEQ identified the
BART-eligible sources in Mississippi by utilizing the three eligibility
criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40
CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within
one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the
emissions units were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were
in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units have the potential
to emit 250 tons or more per year of any visibility-impairing
pollutant.
The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2,
NOX, and direct PM (including both PM10 and
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from
a source impair visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS modeling
demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point
sources are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in
Mississippi, as discussed in section IV.B.3. of this action. MDEQ has
determined, based on the VISTAS modeling, that ammonia emissions from
the State's point sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute
significantly to any impairment of visibility in Class I areas and
should be exempt for BART purposes.
B. BART-Subject Sources
The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to any visibility impairment
[[Page 11889]]
in a Class I area. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, Mississippi
required each of its BART-eligible sources to develop and submit
dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their contribution to
visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
1. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \10\ modeling
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes that CALPUFF
is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70
FR 39162). Mississippi, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF
modeling system to determine whether individual sources in Mississippi
were subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Note that EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer on the
following Web site: https://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Mississippi, developed
a ``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.''
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups,
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development
and review of the VISTAS protocol.
VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could
consider both the old and new IMPROVE equations. The choice between use
of the old or the new equation for calculating the visibility metrics
for each Class I area is made by the state in which the Class I area is
located. Mississippi allowed the use of the new IMPROVE equation in
performing the screening analysis. The States of Alabama, Arkansas, and
Louisiana, whose Class I areas were potentially impacted by
Mississippi's BART sources, also allowed the use of the new IMPROVE
equation for BART analyses.
2. Contribution Threshold
For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that ``[a] single source that
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a
Class I area justifies this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. The State relied
on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2 and NOX for
its EGUs subject to CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4).
Thus, SO2 and NOX were not analyzed.
\12\ The facility met model plant criteria as provided for in
the BART Guidelines for PM emissions only. No further modeling was
performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for
determining which sources are subject to BART. The State concluded that
the threshold of 0.5 deciview, which is the highest level allowed by
the BART Guidelines, was appropriate in this situation. This threshold
of 0.5 deciview was also used by the surrounding states with Class I
areas that sources in Mississippi could impact. MDEQ concluded that a
0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate in this instance. EPA is
proposing to agree with Mississippi that the overall impacts of its
BART-eligible sources are not sufficient to warrant a lower
contribution threshold and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was
appropriate in this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
Mississippi initially identified 15 facilities with BART-eligible
sources. The State subsequently determined that 13 of these sources are
exempt from being considered subject to BART. Table 5 identifies the 15
BART-eligible sources located in Mississippi and, of these, lists the
two sources subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ibid.
\14\ The facility met the model plant criteria as provided for
in the BART Guidelines for PM emissions only. No further modeling
was performed.
Table 5--Mississippi BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART:
Chevron Products Company, Pascagoula Refinery
Mississippi Phosphates Corporation (MPC)
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART:
EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources: \11\
Entergy Mississippi Inc, Baxter Wilson Plant
Entergy Mississippi Inc, Gerald Andrus Plant
Mississippi Power Company, Chevron Cogenerating Plant
Mississippi Power Company, Plant Jack Watson
Mississippi Power Company, Plant Victor J Daniel
South Mississippi Electric Power Association, Moselle Plant:
\12\
South Mississippi Electric Power Association, R D Morrow Plant:
\13\
Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt Sources
Georgia Pacific Corp, Monticello Mill
Greenwood Utilities, Henderson Station
Holcim US Inc.
[[Page 11890]]
International Paper Company, Vicksburg Mill
Pursue Energy Corp, Thomasville Gas Plant
Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc, Yazoo City: \14\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the eight non-EGU facilities, Chevron Products Company--
Pascagoula Refinery and MPC, were determined to be ``subject to BART''
and were required to perform an engineering analysis, which included an
analysis of the five CAA BART factors, their evaluation of potential
BART options, and proposed BART determinations. Six of the non-EGU
sources demonstrated that they are exempt from being subject to BART.
Three of these facilities, Georgia Pacific Corp--Monticello Mill,
Holcim US Inc., and International Paper Company--Vicksburg Mill,
modeled visibility impacts of less than 0.5 deciview at the affected
Class I areas. This modeling involved assessing the visibility impact
of emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM10 as
applicable to individual facilities. The remaining facility, Terra
Mississippi Nitrogen Inc. in Yazoo City, met the model plant criteria
for exempting out of BART certain BART-eligible sources that share
specific characteristics as allowed by EPA's BART Guidelines (70 FR
39163) and no further modeling was required.
All seven BART-eligible EGUs relied on Mississippi's decision to
rely upon CAIR emissions limits for SO2 and NOX
to satisfy their obligation to comply with BART requirements in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, these EGU sources only
modeled PM10 emissions. Five of the seven EGUs provided
modeling demonstrating that their PM10 emissions do not
contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. Two of the
facilities, South Mississippi Electric Power Association--Moselle Plant
and South Mississippi Electric Power Association--R D Morrow Plant, met
the model plant criteria in EPA's BART Guidelines (70 FR 39163) based
on PM emissions only and no further modeling was required.
Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy
BART for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was
fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However,
the BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for NOX and
SO2 and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on
CAIR. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of
the Mississippi regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the
State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the D.C.
Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not
taking action in this notice to address the state's reliance on CAIR to
meet certain regional haze requirements, including BART for
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs.
States such as Mississippi that are subject to the requirements of
the Transport Rule trading program only for NOX must still
address BART for SO2 and other visibility impairing
pollutants. See 76 FR at 82224. While EPA proposed on December 30,
2011, to issue a FIP to address the deficiencies in Mississippi's SIP
associated with the BART requirements for NOX for EGUs based
on EPA's proposed revisions to the RHR allowing states to substitute
participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for
source-specific BART, EPA did not propose a plan to address the
deficiencies associated with the BART requirements for SO2
since the Transport Rule does not cover SO2 emissions from
Mississippi EGUs. Because Mississippi also relied on CAIR in assessing
the need for emissions reductions for SO2 from EGUs to
satisfy BART, the State will have to re-evaluate EGUs with respect to
SO2 BART requirements. If EPA finalizes the limited
disapproval for Mississippi's reliance on CAIR to satisfy the regional
haze SIP requirements for SO2, that action will trigger a
24-month clock for EPA to either implement a FIP to address those
requirements or approve a revised SIP from the State that addresses
SO2 BART for its EGUs.
C. BART Determinations
Two BART-eligible non-EGU sources (i.e., Chevron Products Company--
Pascagoula Refinery and MPC) had modeled visibility impacts of more
than the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART exemption. These two
facilities are therefore considered to be subject to BART and,
consequently, were required to perform an engineering analysis, which
included an analysis of the five CAA BART factors, their evaluation of
potential BART options, and proposed BART determinations.
In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed
existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted
the best controls currently available, then identified what other
technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the
technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors.
The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are
summarized below.
1. Chevron Products Company--Pascagoula Refinery
The modeled visibility impact resulting from Chevron Refinery's
emissions was 3.89 deciview at Breton. As stated in the State's
submittal, Chevron has significant emissions reductions planned due to
permitted projects that are currently or will soon be underway and to
an enforcement consent decree issued June 7, 2005. As a result of
ongoing and planned projects, emissions of NOX from BART
eligible sources will be reduced from 1,480 pounds per hour (lb/hr) to
521 lb/hr, SO2 emissions will be reduced from 3,154 lb/hr to
248 lb/hr, and PM10 emissions will be reduced from 187 lb/hr
to 146 lb/hr.
For SO2, the units affected by the 2005 consent decree
emitted 3,032.7 lb/hr daily maximum average from 2001-2003, which will
be reduced by 2,884.3 lb/hr of SO2. The units involved in
Chevron's consent decree contribute 96 percent of the SO2
emissions for the refinery's BART-eligible sources. The consent decree
will reduce NOX by 960 lb/hr and PM10 by 41 lb/hr
with a modeled visibility improvement of 2.99 deciview at Breton.
Mississippi evaluated three additional control options, two
affecting specific NOX generating units and one for
additional SO2 control. The first option (Option 1) was to
install ultra-low NOX burners (ULNB) on three of the largest
emissions units. These units are the Crude Unit 1 Vacuum Furnace (F-
1102), the Crude Unit 1 Atmospheric Furnace (F-1101), and the
Rheniformer I Reactor Furnaces (F-1501/2/3). This option could reduce
NOX emissions from these sources from 139 lb/hr to 38 lb/hr,
a reduction of 101 lb/hr, and total refinery BART-eligible source
NOX emissions would be reduced by 17 percent from the
currently planned future emissions.
The second option (Option 2) was to also install ULNB in the
Hydrogen Plant No. 2 (F-6410) process heater. This source has a
relatively high NOX emissions rate before control on a lb/hr
basis. However, the combustion air for
[[Page 11891]]
this process heater is the flue gas from the associated gas turbine.
The ULNBs would only control NOX formed in the furnace.
Therefore, the estimated NOX emissions reduction is 50
percent. This option would reduce NOX emissions from this
source from 148 lb/hr to 74 lb/hr, a reduction of 74 lb/hr. By
installing ULNB in the two crude units, Rhenformer I and the hydrogen
plant, total refinery BART-eligible source NOX emissions
could be reduced by 31 percent from the currently planned future
emissions. All the other NOX sources have relatively small
emissions.
A third option (Option 3) considered to reduce SO2
emissions is to decrease the sulfur content of the refinery fuel gas.
Currently, the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content of the
refinery fuel gas is controlled to approximately 50 part per million by
volume (ppmv), which is well below the New Source Performance Standard
emissions limit of 162 ppmv of H2S. However, the refinery
fuel gas also contains approximately 100 ppmv of non-H2S
sulfur compounds such as various mercaptans. The Merox process could be
used to reduce the mercaptan content of the refinery fuel gas. In this
process, the mercaptans are removed with caustic-containing Merox
catalyst. Mercaptans in the rich caustic are oxidized with air to
disulfides that are decanted. The regenerated caustic is recycled. For
this analysis, 90 percent control of mercaptans was assumed. This
option would reduce SO2 emissions from 248 lb/hr to 189 lb/
hr.
For PM10, MDEQ determined that there are no available
additional controls for refinery fuel gas combustion. Most of the other
remaining BART PM10 emissions are refinery fuel gas
combustion emissions, which comprise a small fraction of the facility's
total BART PM10 emissions.
Capital costs range from $8.6 million for Option 1 to $40.6 million
for Option 3. Annual operating costs range from $1.3 million per year
(yr) to $5.9 million/yr. Future emissions controls already planned will
reduce the number of days greater than 1.0 deciview at Breton from 58
days to 71 days to only one to five days, depending upon the year
modeled. Similar results for the eighth highest delta deciview show a
reduction from a range of 2.9 deciviews to 3.9 deciviews for the
baseline case to only 0.7 deciview to 0.9 deciview for the future
planned case. The additional emissions reductions from the three
control options beyond the already planned emissions reductions will
provide only very small additional visibility improvements, ranging
from 0.043 deciview for Option 1 to 0.16 deciview for Option 3. For
each option, the total cost effectiveness and incremental cost
effectiveness exceed $29 million/deciview. Mississippi determined that
these further reductions would be very costly without significant
visibility improvement. Therefore, MDEQ determined that these options
are not BART due to the high cost for small visibility gains.
Mississippi has determined that the emissions controls and resulting
reductions from the consent decree constitute BART.
2. MPC
On November 9, 2010, MPC was issued a Permit to Construct Air
Emissions Equipment that included Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) emissions limits for SO2 and sulfuric acid mist
(H2SO4). With this project, MPC is making many
upgrades, including replacing the absorption towers, installing new
economizers and new superheaters, replacing duct work and piping,
relocating new or refurbished acid coolers (i.e., heat exchangers),
repairing the cooling tower, and replacing the vanadium catalyst with
cesium catalyst in the third and fourth converter passes. These
upgrades will not result in increased sulfuric acid production
capacity, which is currently permitted at 1,800 tons per day per
sulfuric acid plant, but should allow for significant decreases in
down-time due to more reliable operation of the plants. This will
result in an actual-to-potential increase in tons per year (tpy) of
SO2; however, the project will result in greater emissions
controls and lower permitted short-term and annual emissions for both
pollutants.
BACT for SO2 was determined to be the replacement of
vanadium catalyst with cesium catalyst in the third and fourth
converter passes. The permitted SO2 limit is 3.0 pounds (lb)
of SO2 per ton of sulfuric acid produced, not to exceed 225
lb/hr SO2 and 1,700 tpy SO2. MDEQ considers this
emissions limit appropriate as meeting BART for this source.
BACT for H2SO4 was determined to be the
installation of vertical tube mist eliminators in the interpass
absorption tower. The final absorption tower already has these mist
eliminators installed. MPC is also replacing the economizer prior to
the final absorption tower with a larger one which will have the effect
of lowering the exhaust gas temperature and thus, reducing
H2SO4 emissions. The permitted
H2SO4 limit is 0.10 lb
H2SO4 per ton of sulfuric acid produced, not to
exceed 7.5 lb/hr H2SO4 and 32.85 tpy
H2SO4. MDEQ considers this emissions limit
appropriate as meeting BART for this source.
3. EPA Assessment
EPA proposes to agree with Mississippi's analyses and conclusions
for the two BART-subject EGU sources described above. EPA has reviewed
the State's analyses and proposes to conclude that they were conducted
in a manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual (https://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo). While lower emissions limits have been
determined to be BACT for sulfuric acid plants at other facilities,
both BACT and BART are case-by-case determinations. The BACT analysis
appropriately documented that the limited additional capacities and
configuration of catalyst beds for MPC's facility limited its ability
to achieve reductions similar to those achieved at other facilities.
4. Enforceability of Emissions Limits
The BART determinations for each of the facilities discussed above
and the resulting emissions limits are adopted by Mississippi into the
State's regional haze SIP submittal. The limits are also in consent
decrees and will be included in the facilities' title V permits. A copy
of the consent decree for Chevron Products Company--Pascagoula Refinery
was included in Appendix L of the Mississippi regional haze submittal
for informational purposes. A copy of the construction permit issued
for MPC on November 9, 2010, was included in Mississippi's supplemental
submittal of May 9, 2011, for informational purposes.
C. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as
explained in sections III.F and III.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.''
Visibility in any mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista
associated with that area. Since there are no Class I areas in
Mississippi, no integral vistas in Mississippi have been identified. In
addition, none of its sources are affected by the RAVI provisions.
Thus, the Mississippi regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly
address the two
[[Page 11892]]
requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions.
In the State's submittal, MDEQ updated its visibility monitoring
program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also in this
submittal, MDEQ affirmed its commitment to complete items required in
the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, MDEQ made a commitment to
review and revise its regional haze implementation plan and submit a
plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements listed in 40
CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c)
of the RAVI LTS regulations, MDEQ made a commitment to submit a report
to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area
located outside Mississippi which may be affected by emissions from
within Mississippi. The progress report is required to be in the form
of a SIP revision and is due every five years following the initial
submittal of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring
regulations for RAVI and regional haze, Mississippi will rely on the
IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI
monitoring that may be needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4). Since there are no Class I areas in Mississippi, the
State also commits to ongoing consultation with the FLMs throughout the
implementation process, including annual discussion of the
implementation process and the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data and
VIEWS data.
D. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Mississippi is
the IMPROVE network. There are currently no IMPROVE sites in
Mississippi, since it has no Class I areas. In the submittal,
Mississippi states its intention to continue to consult with the FLM
annually on monitoring data from the IMPROVE network for Class I areas
in adjacent states that might be affected by Mississippi sources.
Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
Mississippi is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the
VIEWS or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the
IMPROVE data.
E. Consultation With States and FLMs
1. Consultation With Other States
In December 2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
Mississippi received letters from Louisiana and Alabama
transmitting prehearing drafts of their regional haze SIPs. MDEQ
concurred on the RPGs for the Breton and Sipsey Class I areas, and
committed to continue collaboration with these states in the
preparation of future VISTAS studies and analyses and in addressing
regional haze issues in future implementation periods. EPA proposes to
find that Mississippi has adequately addressed the consultation
requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its consultation
with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
Through the VISTAS RPO, Mississippi and the nine other member
states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support
the regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states.
MDEQ received comments from the U.S. Forestry Service (USFS) and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the State's draft
regional haze SIP dated January 10, 2008. Appendix O of the September
22, 2008, Mississippi regional haze SIP submittal includes a summary of
the comments from the FLMs. Most of the comments were requesting
additional information or discussion on various topics which were taken
into consideration and, for the most part, included in the final
September 2008 SIP submittal. The FLMs provided comments about
including in the SIP submittal discussions on natural background,
uniform rate of progress, and RPGs for nearby Class I areas in other
states. This information was not included because Mississippi believes
that is not necessary or appropriate to present this information as
part of the Mississippi regional haze SIP.
On March 3, 2011, the USFWS also provided comments on the draft
supplemental SIP submittal, including USFWS' views on BART for MPC and
its concerns that Louisiana's methodology for prioritizing sources for
potential reasonable progress control evaluation did not include
Mississippi's DuPont DeLisle facility. MDEQ considered these comments
in making its final determinations.
F. Periodic SIP revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
As also summarized in section IV.C of this action, consistent with
40 CFR 51.308(g), MDEQ affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress
report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following
this initial submittal of the Mississippi regional haze SIP. The report
will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the mandatory
Class I areas located outside Mississippi which may be affected by
emissions from within Mississippi. Mississippi also offered
recommendations for several technical improvements that, as funding
allows, can support the State's next LTS.
If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Mississippi's
SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after appropriate
consultation Mississippi agrees, today's action may be revisited, or
additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-
year progress report SIP revision.
V. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Mississippi
SIP submitted by the State of Mississippi on September 22, 2008, and
May 9, 2011, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze
requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in
40 CFR 51.300-308, as described previously in this action.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information''
[[Page 11893]]
by EPA. The Act defines ``collection of information'' as a requirement
for answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements
imposed on ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The
Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have Federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule 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, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to
[[Page 11894]]
perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4661 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
