Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 11974-11990 [2012-4684]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11974
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(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
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.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2012–4681 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0150, FRL–9638–1]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of Iowa
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited
approval of a revision to the Iowa State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Iowa on March 25, 2008,
that addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and the EPA’s
rules that require States to prevent any
future and remedy any existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas caused by
emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the
‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is proposing a limited
approval of this SIP revision to
implement the regional haze
requirements for Iowa on the basis that
the revision, as a whole, strengthens the
Iowa SIP. In a separate action, EPA
previously proposed a limited
disapproval of the Iowa regional haze
SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s
regional haze SIP arising from the
remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to
EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). Therefore, we are not taking
action in this notice 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–R07–
OAR–2012–0150, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (913) 551–7864 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
4. Mail: Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy
Wolfersberger.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air
Planning and Development Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy
Wolfersberger. 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 a.m. to 5
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00197
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No.: EPA–R07–OAR–2012–
0150. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA, without going
through https://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 the 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
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning and Development
Branch, EPA Region 7 Office, 901 N 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. You may
view the hard copy of the docket
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Chrissy Wolfersberger at 901 N 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; by
telephone at (913) 551–7864; or by
email at wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. What action is EPA proposing?
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 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)
G. Monitoring Strategy
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the state of
Iowa’s submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Long-term Strategy
E. Consultation with Other States
F. BART
i. BART Eligible Sources
ii. BART Subject Sources
1. Non-EGUs (Electric Generating Units)
2. EGU BART Evaluation for Particulate
Matter (PM)
G. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
H. Monitoring Strategy
I. Emissions Inventory
J. Reporting Requirements
K. Consultation With FLMs
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
V. Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing a limited approval
of Iowa’s March 25, 2008, SIP revision
addressing regional haze under CAA
sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) because
the revision as a whole strengthens the
Iowa SIP.1 This proposed rulemaking
1 Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and
the EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
and the accompanying Technical
Support Document (TSD) explain the
basis for EPA’s proposed limited
approval action.2
In a separate action, EPA has
proposed a limited disapproval of the
Iowa 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. 76 FR
82219. We are not proposing to take
action in today’s rulemaking on issues
associated with Iowa’s reliance on CAIR
in its regional haze SIP. Comments on
our proposed limited disapproval of
Iowa’s regional haze SIP may be
directed to the docket for that
rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2011–0729.
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
approval results in approval of the entire SIP
submittal, even of those parts that are deficient, and
prevent the 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.
2 EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical
Support Document for Iowa Regional Haze
Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this
action.
3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
PO 00000
Frm 00198
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11975
areas (i.e., national parks and memorial
parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size
criteria) in the western United States is
100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to
two-thirds of the visual range that
would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. In most of the eastern Class
I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1,
1999).
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress set
forth 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 Federal Class
I areas 4 in 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’’ (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.
In the 1990 Amendments to the CAA,
Congress added section 169B to focus
attention on 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
4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). In accordance with Section 169A of the
CAA, the EPA, in consultation with the Department
of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR
69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate
additional areas as Class I areas, which they
consider to have visibility as an important value,
the requirements of the visibility program set forth
in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory
Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a
‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When
we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we
mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11976
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in the Federal 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. 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,
the EPA has encouraged the States and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their States and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of PM and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.
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 the EPA’s
implementing regulations require States
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
(dv) 5 as the principal metric or unit for
expressing visibility. 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 dv is a more useful measure for
tracking progress in improving visibility
than light extinction itself because each
dv change is an equal incremental
change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a
change in visibility at one dv.6
The dv 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 midway through each ten-year
implementation period. To do this, the
RHR requires States to determine the
degree of impairment (in deciviews) for
the average of the 20 percent least
5 A deciview is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as ‘‘a
haze index derived from calculated light extinction,
such that uniform changes in haziness correspond
to uniform incremental changes in perception
across the entire range of conditions, from pristine
to highly impaired.’’
6 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00199
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most
impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over
a specified time period at each of their
Class I areas. In addition, States must
also develop an estimate of natural
visibility conditions for the purpose of
comparing progress toward the national
goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility
impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those
estimates. EPA has provided guidance
to States regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural and current visibility
conditions in documents titled, EPA’s
Guidance for Estimating Natural
Visibility conditions under the Regional
Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/
B–03–005 located at https://www.epa.
gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_
envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred
to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance’’), and Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule
(EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003
located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/
t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)),
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003
Tracking Progress Guidance’’).
For the first regional haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
visibility impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, States are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five-year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the
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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 the 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 the 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
the EPA Regional Administrators, EPA
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 emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the ten-year period of the
SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by
the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress 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 emission 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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, the EPA published
the Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist States in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. In making a BART
determination for a fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plant with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts, a State must use the
approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but
not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA
has 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
7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00200
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11977
areas. States should consider the
number of emission 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 dv.
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 emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a State
has made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of EPA’s approval of the
regional haze SIP. CAA section
169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source.
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, the EPA made
just such a demonstration for CAIR. 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 the EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which
remain subject to the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR
Part 97 need not require affected BARTeligible EGUs to install, operate, and
maintain BART for emissions of SO2
and NOX. 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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11978
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. 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 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 the CAIR in the interim until
the court rules on the petitions for
review of the Transport Rule.
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, 40 CFR
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. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
contributing State must demonstrate
that it has included, in its SIP, all
measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emission reductions needed to meet
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs
have provided forums for significant
interstate consultation, but additional
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)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (2) measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the
RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist
within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations
and control measures; and (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment Long-Term Strategy
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 in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(b) and (c). The State must revise
its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing RAVI and regional haze on
or before this date. The State must also
submit the first such coordinated LTS
with its first regional haze SIP. Future
coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress
reports evaluating progress toward
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 be submitted to EPA
as a SIP revision and report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment.
PO 00000
Frm 00201
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) 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 Federal areas within
the State. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring
strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE
network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
regional haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to
determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the
following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a State
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the State;
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a State
with no mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other States;
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
the State, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions. A State
must also make a commitment to update
the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to
cover an initial implementation period
extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and
revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every ten years thereafter.
Periodic SIP revisions must meet the
core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)
with the exception of BART. The
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 40 CFR 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. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least sixty days prior to holding
any public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. 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
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State
of Iowa’s submittal?
EPA believes that the State has met
the requirements of the CAA sections
110(l) and 110(a)(2) which require that
the State adopt a SIP after reasonable
notice and public hearing. EPA also
believes that the State has met the
requirements of the specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions
promulgated at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart
F. These requirements include
publication of notices by prominent
advertisement in the relevant
geographic area of a public hearing on
proposed revisions, at least a 30-day
public comment period, and the
opportunity for a public hearing, and
that the State, in accordance with its
laws, submit the revision to EPA for
approval. Specific information on
Iowa’s rulemaking, regional haze SIP
development and the public information
process is included in Chapter 2, and
Appendix 2.1, of the State of Iowa’s
regional haze SIP, which is included in
the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
A. Affected Class I Areas
There are no Class I areas hosted by
the State of Iowa, and no portion of land
within the State of Iowa is within 300
kilometers (km) of a Class I area.
However, States without Class I areas
are still required to submit SIPs that
address the apportionment of visibility
impact from the emissions generated by
sources within the State’s borders at
Class I areas hosted by other States.
The State of Iowa participated in the
planning efforts of the CENRAP which
is affiliated with the Central States Air
Resource Agencies (CENSARA). This
RPO includes nine States—Nebraska,
Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota,
Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and
Louisiana. CENRAP and its contractors
provided air quality modeling to the
States to help them determine whether
sources located within the State can be
reasonably expected to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area. The modeling conducted
relied on baseline year (2002) and future
planning year (2018) emissions
inventories that were prepared with
participation from each of the CENRAP
States.
11979
The State of Iowa relied upon the
regional modeling work performed by
CENRAP for determining the impact
that sources within the State might have
on Class I areas in the region and
beyond. The modeling was based on PM
Source Apportionment Technology
(PSAT) for the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with extensions (CAMx)
photochemical model. A detailed
description of the source apportionment
methods utilized by CENRAP is
available in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
The following Class I areas were
evaluated for contribution by the State
of Iowa:
• Boundary Waters Canoe Area,
Minnesota (BOWA).
• Voyageurs National Park,
Minnesota (VOYA).
• Seney Wilderness Area, Michigan
(SENE).
• Isle Royale National Park, Michigan
(ISLE).
• Hercules Glades Wilderness Area,
Missouri (HEGL).
• Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri
(MING).
• Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas
(CACR).
• Upper Buffalo Wilderness,
Arkansas (UPBU).
• Badlands National Park, South
Dakota (BADL).
• Wind Cave National Park, South
Dakota (WICA).
BOWA, VOYA, SENE and ISLE are
known as the Northern Midwest Class I
areas. According to the CENRAP PSAT
results, the combined effect of all Iowa
emissions upon the total modeled
visibility impairment at the four
Northern Midwest Class I areas is
approximately 4 to 5 percent in both
2002 and 2018. The data were
calculated in accordance with the new
IMPROVE equation and are
representative of those days with the
worst 20 percent visibility conditions.
TABLE 1—PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF IOWA, MINNESOTA, AND MICHIGAN TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AT THE NORTHERN
MIDWEST CLASS I AREAS, 20 PERCENT WORST DAYS
Iowa
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2002
Boundary Waters .....................................
Voyagers ..................................................
Isle Royale ...............................................
Seney .......................................................
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
2018
3.7
3.8
4.5
4.2
The PSAT results provided above are
in terms of percentages of total visibility
impairment. The State of Iowa found
them useful for determining the
proportion of the State’s contribution in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Minnesota
2002
3.9
4.0
4.9
4.8
2018
25.6
29.1
11.5
3.9
relation to the total modeled visibility
impairment at a Class I area. However,
characterizing visibility impairment
using just percentages can fail to
identify the magnitude of the
PO 00000
Frm 00202
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Michigan
2002
28.5
30.4
12.5
4.4
2018
2.3
1.4
11.1
9.6
2.7
1.6
12.8
12.7
contribution. For example, Iowa’s
percent contributions increase between
2002 and 2018, but the actual light
extinction values decrease between the
same years.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11980
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—IOWA’S ABSOLUTE CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT, NORTHERN MIDWEST CLASS I AREAS
Worst 20 percent days modeled extinction (Mm–1)
Iowa
Class I area total
2002
Boundary Waters .............................................................................................
Voyagers ..........................................................................................................
Isle Royale .......................................................................................................
Seney ...............................................................................................................
Iowa’s contributions to visibility
impairment, as calculated through light
extinction using the new IMPROVE
equation, are provided in Table 2. The
total modeled visibility impairment for
each Class I area are also shown in the
table. Iowa emissions sources
cumulatively contribute only 2.2–4.5
2018
2.39
2.60
3.23
4.54
Mm–1 of the 56–107 Mm–1 total
modeled visibility impairment at the
Northern Midwest Class I areas in 2002.
In tandem, Iowa’s percentage and
absolute contributions describe the
impacts emissions sources in Iowa may
have upon nearby Class I areas.
2002
2.08
1.97
3.02
3.95
2018
64.87
56.45
71.40
107.92
53.44
48.84
61.26
82.00
Another way to assess Iowa’s
contribution to visibility impairment is
to use the dv metric. As shown by Table
3, modeling results show that visibility
improvements resulting from the
elimination of all Iowa sources yield
impacts below 0.5 dv.
TABLE 3—ESTIMATED 2018 LEVEL OF VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL IOWA EMISSIONS SOURCES
2018 Worst 20%
(dv)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Boundary Waters .................................................................................................
Voyagers ..............................................................................................................
Isle Royale ...........................................................................................................
Seney ...................................................................................................................
The State determined that when
considered collectively, the data in
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show that Iowa
sources were responsible for a minimal
contribution to visibility impairment at
the Northern Midwest Class I areas.
Iowa’s contributions to the Arkansas
and Missouri Class I areas (HEGL,
UPBU, CACR, MING) in terms of
percentage contribution to visibility
extension were less than to the Northern
Midwest Class I areas. PSAT analysis
showed that Iowa sources contributed
approximately 1.6–2.7 percent to the
total visibility extinction on the 20
percent worst visibility days in 2018 at
these Class I areas.
PSAT analysis showed that Iowa
sources contributed approximately 1.6
percent to the total visibility extinction
on the 20 percent worst visibility days
in 2018 at the BADL and approximately
1.2 percent to the total visibility
extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2018 at the Wind Cave
National Park, an impact which Iowa
determined to be insignificant.
EPA believes the State of Iowa
adequately identified the Class I areas
impacted by emissions from Iowa
sources and the State adequately
determined the apportionment of those
pollutants from sources located within
the State.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
18.5
17.7
19.6
22.2
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural
and Current Visibility Conditions
States that host Class I areas are
required to estimate the baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions
of those Class I areas. As Iowa does not
host a Class I area, it is not required to
estimate these metrics.
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
States hosting Class I areas have
established RPGs, and have made
assessments regarding whether emission
reductions are needed from sources in
Iowa in order to meet their RPG. This
consultation is described in Section IV.
E of this rulemaking. EPA is proposing
to determine that the State has met the
requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii)
of the RHR.
D. Long-Term Strategy
As discussed in greater detail in
section IV. I. of this proposed
rulemaking, the emissions inventory
used in the State’s regional haze
technical analyses was developed by
CENRAP. The 2018 emissions inventory
was developed by projecting 2002
emissions and applying reductions
expected from Federal and State
regulations affecting the emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants. The
emissions inventory for Iowa projects
changes to point, area and mobile
PO 00000
Frm 00203
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2018 Worst 20%
less Iowa’s
contribution (dv)
18.1
17.4
19.2
21.8
Iowa’s visibility
& impacts (dv)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
source inventories by the end of the first
implementation period resulting from
population growth, industrial, energy
and natural resources development,
land management, and air pollution
control.
There are many Federal and State
control programs being implemented
that the State of Iowa anticipates will
reduce emissions between the end of the
baseline period and 2018. Emission
reductions from these control programs
are included in the modeling analysis
and are projected to achieve substantial
visibility improvement by 2018 in the
CENRAP and MRPO Class I areas. Iowa
considered the minor and major new
source review programs (NSR),
nonattainment new source review
programs (NNSR), prevention of
significant deterioration permits (PSD),
CAIR, the heavy duty highway diesel
rule, the clean air non-road diesel rule,
other on-road and non-road mobile
source programs, operating permits,
pertinent new source performance
standards (NSPS), national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP), associated maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
standards, and Integrated Planning
Model (IPM) 8 results in developing its
long-term strategy.
8 https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
In a separate notice proposing limited
disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of
a number of States, including Iowa, 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 Stateadopted reasonable progress goals. (76
FR 82219, December 30, 2011). In that
notice, we proposed a limited
disapproval of Iowa’s LTS insofar as it
relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are
not taking action on that aspect of the
long-term strategy in this notice.
Comments on that proposed
determination may be directed to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0729.
In order to mitigate the impact of
construction activities, the State of
Iowa’s rule on fugitive dust (567 IAC
23.3(2)‘‘c’’) states that reasonable
precautions shall be taken to prevent the
discharge of visible emissions of
airborne dust beyond the lot line of the
property from which the emissions
originated. The State also requires
minor NSR permits for aggregate
processing plants, concrete batch plants,
and asphalt plants. Portable aggregate,
concrete, or asphalt plants must notify
the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) thirty days before
transferring the equipment to a new
location to allow for review of the
emissions impacts on national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The
IDNR would notify the portable plant if
there are potential adverse impacts on
the NAAQS. A more stringent emission
standard and the installation of
additional control equipment would be
required if the relocation would prevent
the attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS. Iowa determined that no
additional measures were needed to
mitigate the impacts of construction
activities for purposes of visibility
improvement, and EPA agrees with this
determination.
Iowa demonstrated that source
retirement and replacement schedules
were taken into account, to the extent
possible, when developing inputs for
the IPM that was used in the CENRAP
modeling analysis.
Iowa does not have a smoke
management program at this time. Iowa
notes that the CENRAP PSAT modeling
indicates that fires in Iowa do not
significantly contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas, and
therefore believes that a smoke
management program is not needed for
purposes of visibility improvement at
this time.
The State has determined, and the
EPA agrees, that the implementation of
the on the books and on the way
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
controls mentioned above are the
control measures necessary for the State
to achieve its apportionment of
emission reductions agreed upon
through the consultation process
(discussed in greater detail below and in
Section IV.E of this proposed
rulemaking) as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
E. Consultation With Other States
Iowa participated with the central
consultation group, a subset of the
CENRAP. This group was coordinated
by the States of Missouri and Arkansas.
Other participants include Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas,
Kentucky, Tennessee, FLMs, other
RPOs, and tribes. In addition to
participation in the CENRAP regional
planning process, the SIP indicates that
Iowa also participated in the Midwest
Class I area consultation group,
coordinated by the States of Minnesota
and Michigan, which included
participation from the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and
Wisconsin, as well as Tribal lands in the
five States that are part of the Midwest
Planning Organization (MRPO).
In a letter dated July 23, 2007,9 the
central consultation group determined
that additional reductions beyond
existing and proposed controls, through
both State and Federal requirements,
would not be necessary from the State
of Iowa in order for the uniform rate of
progress to be met at each of the Class
I areas in the States of Missouri and
Arkansas (HEGL, MING, CACR, and the
UPBU). EPA believes that this satisfies
the requirement for consultation
between these States.
Iowa communicated directly with the
State of South Dakota, via letters dated
May 31, 2007, and June 18, 2007,
regarding visibility impacts at Badlands
and Wind Cave National Parks. The
State of South Dakota asked the State of
Iowa for any analysis that it conducted
to determine impacts, if any, sources in
Iowa may have on the South Dakota
Class I areas. The State of Iowa
responded that source PSAT analysis
was available on the CENRAP Web site
titled ‘‘PSAT Viz Tool 27–April 2007.’’
Iowa explained the analysis showed that
sources in the State of Iowa contributed
approximately 1.6 percent to the total
visibility extinction on the 20 percent
worst visibility days in 2018 at
Badlands and approximately 1.2 percent
to the total visibility extinction on the
20 percent worst visibility days in 2018
at Wind Cave, which Iowa considered to
be an insignificant contribution. The
9 State consultation letters are provided in
Appendix 10 of the SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00204
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11981
State of Iowa did not receive a response
or request for additional information
from the State of South Dakota. EPA
believes that this satisfies the
requirement for consultation between
these two States.
The State of Iowa also communicated
directly with the State of Oklahoma
regarding potential visibility impacts of
Iowa sources on the Wichita Mountains
Wildlife Refuge. In a letter dated
February 25, 2008, the State of
Oklahoma invited States that had a
projected contribution of at least 1 Mm1 in 2018 visibility impact at Wichita
Mountains to participate in its
consultation process. The letter goes on
to determine that, after evaluation, in
the 2018 modeling projections for the 20
percent worst visibility days at Wichita
Mountains, anthropogenic emissions
from the sources in the State of Iowa
were not reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment at
Wichita Mountains and that the State of
Oklahoma was not requesting that the
State of Iowa consider additional
emission reductions. EPA believes that
this satisfies the requirement for
consultation between these two States.
In a letter dated September 19, 2007,
the State of Minnesota determined that
the State of Iowa (among other States),
was a significant contributor to visibility
impairment at Voyageurs National Park
and Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness. Attachments provided with
the letter indicated that the State of
Minnesota utilized Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium (LADCO)
trajectory analysis and CENRAP PSAT
analysis (for baseline years) to
determine if a State contributed 5
percent or more to visibility impairment
at the two Minnesota Class I areas. A
contribution of 5 percent was
considered by the State of Minnesota to
be significant. The LADCO trajectory
analysis estimated contributions from
emissions from the State of Iowa to be
approximately 7.4 percent at Boundary
Waters and approximately 10.2 percent
at Voyageurs. The CENRAP PSAT
modeling estimated contributions from
emissions from the State of Iowa to be
approximately 3.5 percent at Boundary
Waters and approximately 3.8 percent at
Voyageurs.
In its letter, the State of Minnesota
asked the State of Iowa to: ‘‘* * *
evaluate further reductions of SO2 from
electric generating units (EGU) in order
to reduce SO2 emissions by 2018 to a
rate that is more comparable to the
emissions rate projected for 2018 for
EGU sources in Minnesota,
approximately 0.25 lbs/MMBtu.’’ The
State of Minnesota also asked the State
of Iowa to make a commitment to
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11982
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
review, by 2013, the potential emission
reductions that could be gained from
control of industrial, commercial, and
institutional (ICI) boilers and other
point sources (such as reciprocating
engines and turbines). The State of Iowa
responded to the State of Minnesota in
a letter dated November 1, 2007,
communicating that it would not
commit to evaluate further reductions of
SO2 from EGUs because the State was
participating in the CAIR and because
the State of Iowa had concerns with the
State of Minnesota’s interpretations of
the LADCO/Minnesota four-factor
analysis for reasonable progress. The
State of Minnesota relied upon
information from its four-factor analysis
as an appendix to its request letter. The
State of Iowa considered the State of
Minnesota’s cost per deciview
improvement figures, in a range of
approximately $3 billion/dv to $3.3
billion/dv, to be unreasonable for SO2
control beyond CAIR for EGUs in the
State of Iowa. The State of Iowa also
considered the State of Minnesota’s
dollar per deciview figures, in a range
of approximately $2.8 billion/dv to $3.4
billion/dv, to be unreasonable for
control of ICIs. The State explained that
a similar argument could be made for
reciprocating engines and combustion
engines.
The State of Iowa also questioned the
State of Minnesota’s use of the LADCO
trajectory analysis to determine
significance of emissions from
surrounding States because the
trajectory analysis was based upon
theoretical air flow and did not account
for chemical reactions in the
atmosphere that is accounted for in the
CENRAP PSAT modeling. Because the
CENRAP PSAT modeling indicated that
emissions from the State of Iowa
contribute less than 5 percent to
impairment at Minnesota Class I areas,
the State of Iowa did not consider
emissions from sources within its
boundaries to be significant
(considering the State of Minnesota’s
significance threshold of 5 percent).
Iowa determined that additional
controls were unsupported at this first
stage of the regional haze rule, because
Minnesota did not request that controls
be installed on specific sources; did not
provide justification on how such
controls would lead to visibility
improvement at the Minnesota Class I
areas; did not provide documentation or
otherwise consult with Iowa regarding
any specific visibility improvement at
the Minnesota Class I areas which
would result from controlling Iowa
sources; and because of the cost and
visibility issues mentioned above.
However on page 38 of the SIP, the State
of Iowa does commit to continued
consultation with Minnesota in the
future on issues involving regional haze
as requested and warranted. EPA
believes that this satisfies the
requirement for consultation between
these two States.
The State of Michigan wrote the State
of Iowa a letter, dated October 26, 2007,
stating that it was not asking other
States to reduce emissions for purposes
of meeting the requirements of the RHR.
EPA believes that this satisfies the
requirement for consultation between
these two States.
In summary, the State of Iowa
consulted both directly and through the
RPO process with the States on which
Iowa sources may have an effect. EPA
proposes to find that Iowa met the
consultation requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv) and has addressed in its
plan all measures necessary to obtain its
share of emission reductions impacting
visibility in Class I areas.
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
F. BART
In the BART determination process,
States must address all significant
visibility impairing pollutants. The most
significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. As
indicated by the BART Guidelines, a
State should use its best judgment in
determining whether VOCs, ammonia
(NH3) or ammonia compounds impair
visibility in particular Class I areas.10
Iowa conducted a quantitative analysis
of emissions inventory data to show that
Iowa point source NH3 and VOC
emissions do not cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in any Class I
area. This analysis is described in the
TSD for this rulemaking, and EPA
agrees with this conclusion.
i. BART-Eligible Sources
For an emission source to be
identified as BART-eligible, the State
used these criteria from the BART
Guidelines: (1) One or more emissions
units at the facility fit within one of the
26 categories listed in the BART
Guidelines; (2) the emission unit was in
existence on August 7, 1977 and began
operation at some point on or after
August 7, 1962; and (3) the limited
potential emissions from all emission
units identified in the previous two
items were 250 tons or more per year of
any of these visibility-impairing
pollutants: SO2, NOX, or PM10.
To identify the sources that met the
criteria above, Iowa required sources to
self identify as BART-eligible by rule
(Iowa Administrative Code 567–22.9
Special Requirements for Visibility
Protection) on a form supplied by the
State. The State reviewed all in-house
permitting, Title V databases, and the
submitted forms to determine if a source
met the criteria explained above. This
process is outlined in detail in
Appendix 9 of the SIP. The twenty
seven BART-eligible facilities identified
are listed in Table 4. EPA proposes to
find that the State appropriately
identified the BART-eligible units in the
State.
TABLE 4—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STATE OF IOWA
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Electric Plant Individually Greater than 250 MMBtu/
hour.
Cedar Falls Utilities ...................................
07–02–005
Unit #7 (EU10, 1A).
Central
Iowa
Power
Cooperative
(CIPCO)—Summit Lake Station.
Central
Iowa
Power
Cooperative
(CIPCO)—Fair Station.
City of Ames—Steam Electric Plant .........
Interstate Power and Light—Burlington ....
88–01–004
70–08–003
Combustion turbines (EU1, EU1G, EU2,
EU2G).
Unit #2 (EU2 & EU 2G).
85–01–006
29–01–013
Boiler #7 (EU2).
Main plant boiler.
10 Appendix Y of 40 CFR Part 51-States should
exercise judgment in deciding whether the
following pollutants impair visibility in an area: (4)
Volatile organic compounds (VOC), and (5)
Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A state should
use its best judgment in deciding whether VOC or
ammonia emissions from a source are likely to have
an impact on visibility in an area. Certain types of
VOC emissions, for example, are more likely to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
form secondary organic aerosols than others.
Similarly, controlling ammonia emissions in some
areas may not have a significant impact on
visibility. A state need not provide a formal
showing of an individual decision that a source of
VOC or ammonia emissions is not subject to BART
review. Because air quality modeling may not be
feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia,
a state should also exercise its judgment in
PO 00000
Frm 00205
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
assessing the degree of visibility impacts due to
emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or
ammonia compounds. A state should fully
document the basis for judging that a VOC or
ammonia source merits BART review, including its
assessment of the source’s contribution to visibility
impairment.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
11983
TABLE 4—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STATE OF IOWA—Continued
Interstate Power and Light—Lansing .......
Interstate Power and Light—ML Kapp .....
Interstate Power and Light—Prairie Creek
MidAmerican Energy Company—Council
Bluffs.
MidAmerican Energy Company—Neal
North.
MidAmerican Energy Company—Neal
South.
Muscatine Power and Water ....................
Pella Municipal Power Plant .....................
03–03–001
23–01–014
57–01–042
78–01–026
Boiler
Boiler
Boiler
Boiler
97–04–010
Boiler #1–3 (EU001–EU003).
97–04–011
Boiler #4 (EU003).
70–01–011
63–02–005
Boiler #8.
Boilers #6–8.
Equistar Chemicals ...................................
Koch Nitrogen Company ..........................
23–01–004
94–01–005
Monsanto Company Muscatine ................
Terra Nitrogen Port Neal Comp ...............
70–01–008
97–01–030
301 emission units.
Ammonia vapor flares and primary reformer/auxiliary boiler. 8 units total.
Boilers #5–7. 57 emission units total.
Boiler B & auxiliary boiler.
BP—Bettendorf Terminal ..........................
82–02–024
Truck loading.
BP—Des Moines Terminal .......................
77–01–158
Truck loading.
Portland Cement Plant ..............................
Holcim (US) Inc. .......................................
17–01–009
109 emission units.
Fossil Fuel-fired Boiler ..............................
ADM ..........................................................
23–01–006
#7 & 8 boilers. These boilers will permanently shut down by 9/13/08.
Iron and Steel Mills ...................................
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc ............................
Griffin Pipe Products Co. ..........................
John Deere Foundry Waterloo .................
Keokuk Steel Casings, A Matrix Metals
Company LLC.
The Dexter Company ...............................
26–01–001
78–01–012
07–01–010
56–01–025
18
10
37
67
51–01–005
Tumblers 5 & 6.
Alcoa, Inc. .................................................
82–01–002
Hot line mill. 87 emissions units total.
Chemical Process Plant ............................
Petroleum Storage and Transfer Units
with a Total Storage.
Secondary Metal Production .....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ii. BART-Subject Sources
Of the twenty seven BART-eligible
facilities, thirteen are fossil-fuel fired
EGUs, and as such, are subject to CAIR
for NOX and SO2. As noted in EPA’s
separate notice proposing revisions to
the regional haze rule (76 FR 82219,
December 30, 2011) a number of States,
including Iowa, relied on CAIR to
satisfy the BART requirements for SO2
and NOX, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). 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). As
explained above, we are not proposing
to take action in today’s rulemaking on
issues associated with Iowa’s reliance
on CAIR in its regional haze SIP,
including BART for SO2 and NOX for
EGUs. In a separate action, EPA has
previously proposed a limited
disapproval of Iowa’s 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 (DC Circuit)
to EPA of CAIR. 76 FR 82219.
Comments on that proposed
determination may be directed to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0729. The PM BART evaluation for
these sources is described in section
V.F.2 below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
1. Non-EGUs
Iowa used three screening approaches
to determine if the remaining fourteen
non-EGU sources identified in table 4
were subject to BART:
• Q/d (‘‘Q’’ being allowable
emissions, in tons per year, and ‘‘d’’
representing the distance in km to the
nearest Class I area, multiplied by a
prescribed constant);11
• A variety of assessments using
CAMx photochemical model (a regional
scale model); and
• An emissions inventory analysis.
The RHR established thresholds
defining the terms ‘‘cause’’ and
11 The method, originally developed by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, is a tool to eliminate distant,
insignificant emission sources from ambient
assessments submitted under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The Q/d
method determines a source to be insignificant if
the allowable emissions in tons per year (Q) divided
by a constant times the distance in kilometers (d)
is greater than a value of 1. For example, North
Carolina uses a constant of 20, which was
determined empirically. Therefore, a source could
be considered insignificant if its emissions divided
by 20 times its distance, in km, from the nearest
Class I area is less than 1. For this application, for
determining exemption from BART, the combined
emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 of a BARTeligible unit could be divided by 20 times the
distance to the nearest Class I area. If that quotient
is less than 1, the source would not be subject to
BART. If a source is not found to be exempt under
this approach, the CALPUFF screening analysis
could still be used for an exemption determination.
Page 25196 of 69 FR 25183.
PO 00000
Frm 00206
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
#4 Sixteen units total.
#2. Six units total.
#4. Fourteen units total.
#3 (EU003).
emission
emission
emission
emission
units.
units.
units.
units.
‘‘contribute’’. A source is said to
‘‘cause’’ visibility impairment if its
impact is equal to or greater than 1.0 dv
at any Class I area. A source is said to
‘‘contribute’’ to visibility impairment if
its impacts are equal to or greater than
0.5 dv at any Class I area. Although the
RHR affords States the opportunity to
adopt a more stringent deminimis
threshold, the State of Iowa chose not to
do so. However, for its three step BARTsubject screening analyses, the State did
utilize a threshold that considered the
number of days a source’s impact was
equal to or greater than 0.5 dv. The State
chose seven days for this threshold.12
The State’s ‘‘Variegated Protocol in
Support of Best Available Retrofit
Technology Determinations—May
2006’’ explains that if the State were to
find no maximum delta-deciview (ddv)
values greater than 0.5 dv from any of
the three screening methods, it would
provide a statewide exemption of the
BART sources assessed in the given
scenario. Should initial cumulative
modeling quantify ddv impacts
exceeding 0.5 dv, the State would refine
its analyses. For each BART eligible
source, information regarding Q/d
analyses, CALPUFF model plant
evaluation, and CAMx results were
assembled and utilized in a weight-of12 This is discussed on pages 3 and 11 of the
State’s ‘‘Variegated Protocol in Support of Best
Available Retrofit Technology Determinations’’.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11984
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
evidence approach in the final subjectto-BART determination. If a unit was
not clearly identifiable as either BARTsubject or exempt from the BART
determination process, the State
provided a case-by-case discussion.
Table 5 lists each of the fourteen nonEGU BART-eligible sources analyzed for
Q/d estimates, where ‘‘Q’’ is the sum of
NOX, SO2 and PM10 emissions (PM2.5
direct emission estimates were not
available at the time of the calculations
were performed by the State) and ‘‘d’’ is
the distance between the source and the
nearest Class I area in km. The Q/d
estimates were completed using both
actual and potential emissions and were
multiplied by three different constants
(20, 10, and 5). Iowa used a 1.0
threshold as its Q/d screening threshold.
Note that potential emissions include
only BART-eligible units while actual
emissions represent facility wide totals,
thus in certain cases actual emissions
may exceed potentials.
Based on the six Q/d calculations the
State categorized each of the fourteen
non-EGU BART-eligible sources into
three categories: (1) Those sources that
clearly exceed the 1.0 threshold, (2)
sources well below the 1.0 threshold
and 3) those sources with mixed results.
Table 5 shows that only ADM-Clinton
and Holcim, Inc. clearly exceed the 1.0
threshold in nearly each of the six Q/d
calculations.
TABLE 5—NEAREST CLASS I AREA & Q/D VALUES FOR NON-EGU BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES
Facility name
Equistar Chemical ..........................
Koch Nitrogen Company ................
Monsanto-Muscatine ......................
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal ................
BP-Bettendorf .................................
BP-Des Moines ...............................
Holcim, Inc. .....................................
ADM-Clinton ...................................
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc. .................
Griffin Pipe Products ......................
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo .......
Keokuk Steel Casing ......................
The Dexter Company .....................
Alcoa, Inc. .......................................
Nearest
Class I
Distance
(km)
BART Units potential emissions (tpy)
Facility wide actual emissions (tpy)
SO2
NOX
PM10
Q/20d
Q/10d
Q/5d
SO2
NOX
PM10
Q/20d
Q/10d
Q/5d
MING ........
BOWA ......
MING ........
BADL ........
MING ........
HEGL .......
BOWA ......
MING ........
HEGL .......
HEGL .......
BOWA ......
MING ........
MING ........
MING ........
531.2
615.4
486.8
487.6
499.9
547.0
527.0
531.9
448.8
563.6
588.8
392.0
468.9
501.8
3,883
40
430
1
0
0
28,715
6,051
136
190
0
11
0
15
3,433
1,399
168
916
0
0
4,738
2,117
68
235
0
72
0
400
258
23
81
325
0
0
1,000
507
605
211
285
554
541
1,092
0.71
0.12
0.07
0.13
0.00
0.00
3.27
0.82
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.06
0.15
1.43
0.24
0.14
0.25
0.00
0.00
6.54
1.63
0.18
0.11
0.05
0.16
0.12
0.30
2.85
0.48
0.28
0.51
0.00
0.00
13.07
3.26
0.36
0.23
0.10
0.32
0.23
0.60
1
0
465
1
0
0
3,826
6,479
1
2
9
4
29
2
728
442
192
461
0
0
2,813
5,003
0
88
21
9
3
137
52
20
8
33
0
0
190
1,272
22
111
99
67
112
209
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.65
1.20
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.15
0.08
0.14
0.10
0.00
0.00
1.30
2.40
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.07
0.29
0.15
0.27
0.20
0.00
0.00
2.59
4.80
0.01
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.14
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A majority of the non-EGU facilities
were well below the 1.0 screening
threshold in all six Q/d tests. Eleven
facilities, listed in table 6, yield Q/d
values well below 1.0 at even the most
stringent potential to emit Q/5d
evaluation. The State subsequently
determined that these sources were
unlikely to be subject to BART. Iowa
indicates, on page 13 of Appendix 9 to
the SIP, that this conclusion is further
supported through evaluation of the Q/
d values using facility-wide actual
emissions. The actual emission Q/5d
values average 0.09, with the upper
limit at Monsanto Company-Muscatine
of only 0.27. The State determined that
these low values suggested any emission
reductions would be insignificant at the
nearest Class I area to the source.
Equistar Chemical is the only facility
listed in Table 5 above where the results
are not clear cut. Considering potential
emissions, the Q/20d value is 0.71 with
Q/10d and Q/5d exceeding 1.0. Actual
emissions reveal that the most
conservative value, Q/5d, remains well
below 1.0 at 0.29. Equistar Chemical
reported facility wide SO2 emissions in
2002 at one tpy, with NOX emissions of
728 tpy. As shown in Table 5, the
nearest Class I area receptor is located
at Mingo, at a distance of approximately
531 km. The transport distance in
combination with low actual emissions
produced the low Q/d value for Equistar
Chemical. Under these circumstances,
Equistar Chemical is unlikely to be
subject to BART. However, the State
considered results from additional
analyses, described below, before
TABLE 6—NON-EGU BART-ELIGIBLE making any BART exemptions based
FACILITIES SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW solely on Q/d calculations.
The BART guidelines indicate that
ALL Q/D SCREENING TESTS
when determining if a source is BARTsubject, CALPUFF, or other appropriate
Koch Nitrogen Company
models, can be used to determine if an
Monsanto- Muscatine
individual source is anticipated to cause
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal
or contribute to impairment of visibility
BP-Bettendorf
in Class I areas.13 The State explains in
BP-Des Moines
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc.
Griffin Pipe Products
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo
Keokuk Steel Casing
The Dexter Company
Alcoa, Inc.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
13 CALPUFF
is a multi-layer, multi-species nonsteady-state puff dispersion model that simulates
the effects of time- and space-varying
meteorological conditions on pollution transport,
transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be
applied on scales of tens to hundreds of kilometers.
It includes algorithms for subgrid scale effects (such
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00207
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Appendix 9 to the SIP, and in its
Variegated Protocol, that because each
BART-eligible unit located within the
State was an average of 516 km (with a
minimum of 392 km) away from the
nearest Class I area, it experienced
difficulties using the CALPUFF model
to determine if a unit was BART-subject,
due to the tendency of CALPUFF to
over-predict single source contributions.
The State did use CALPUFF as the
modeling tool for its model plant
approach described below, in the TSD
for this rulemaking, and in section 5.2
of Appendix 9 to the SIP.
For the model plant analysis, the State
utilized combined (SO2 and NOX)
emission rates of 5,000 tpy and 3,000
tpy per source because of the distance
from the sources to the Class I areas.
The State chose to use the following
Class I areas based on their distance
from Iowa sources: BADL, BOWA,
VOYA, MING, HEGL, ISLE and SENE.
Natural background concentrations were
extracted from the EPA’s Guidance for
Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
under the Regional Haze Program.14.
as terrain impingement), as well as longer range
effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet
scavenging and dry deposition, chemical
transformation, and visibility effects of particulate
matter concentrations). https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff.
14 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/
rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
During the State’s analyses, each
model plant simulation required
fourteen iterations: Two natural
background scenarios across seven Class
I areas. Results for each Class I area
assessment were tabulated and ranked
individually. Both maximum and 98th
percentile values were considered when
determining the levels at which
emissions may cause (dv impacts greater
than or equal to 1.0) or contribute (dv
impacts greater than or equal to 0.5) to
visibility impairment.
The results of the analysis (given on
page 28 and 29 of Appendix 9 to the
SIP) showed that the model plant, with
5,000 tpy of NOX and SO2 combined
(and 50 tpy of PM2.5) did not yield any
dv impacts greater than 0.5 dv at the
98th percentile as compared against
annually averaged natural background
conditions. In the years 2002 and 2003,
a maximum of five days exceed the 0.5
dv impact threshold, occurring at the
BADL, likely due to utilization of the
cleaner Western natural background
conditions.15 During 2004, six days
exceed the 0.5 dv impact threshold. The
remaining six Class I area evaluations
yield counts less than or equal to five
days with impacts greater than 0.5 dv.
Considering individual daily maximum
impacts, 2002 values remain near the
0.5 dv level; slightly higher maximum
impacts occur in 2003. In 2004
maximum impacts were consistently
above 1.0 dv. When compared against
the 20 percent best natural background
conditions, each year, for each site, had
more than seven days with maximum
impacts exceeding 0.5 dv. As expected,
maximum individual daily impacts
show a corresponding increase versus
annually averaged natural background
conditions.
The results of the model plant
analysis with 3,000 tpy of NOX and SO2
combined (and 50 tpy of PM2.5) showed
that the 98th percentile is never
exceeded, regardless of the natural
background scenario. Additionally, at
3,000 tpy of NOX and SO2 emissions
combined, maximum impacts for the
years 2002 and 2003, as compared
against annually averaged natural
background conditions, do not exceed
0.5 dv. The year 2004 does produce
impacts above 0.5 dv. Two days above
0.5 dv are modeled for the BADL, and
one day above 0.5 dv are shown for the
remaining Class I areas. The 20 percent
best natural background conditions—
15 Annual average natural background
concentrations are not strictly Class I area specific.
Alternatively, sites are assigned one of two datasets:
Eastern or Western. Of the seven Class I areas
examined within the Iowa domain, all are
considered Eastern sites with the exception of the
Badlands. Page 23 of Appendix 9 to the SIP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
maximum daily impacts remain below
0.5 dv for all but SENE in 2002. In 2003,
impacts greater than 0.5 dv are found for
each site, but occur on no more than
two days. Again, emissions in 2004
result in the dv highest impacts, but the
impacts do not exceed the 98th
percentile.
Based upon these results, the State
concluded that any BART-eligible
source that emitted less than 3,000 tpy
of combined NOX, SO2 and PM2.5 would
likely be exempt from being BARTsubject. At the 3,000 tpy level,
evaluation against the stringent 20
percent best natural background
conditions yields no more than five
days with impacts exceeding 0.5 dv.
Utilizing the emissions data (provided
in table 5), the State determined that
eleven of the fourteen non-EGU BARTeligible sources would remain well
below the 3,000 tpy combined potential
to emit. These happen to be the same
facilities already identified in table 6 as
being below the Q/d screening
thresholds.
As a final tool to help in the BARTsubject screening process, the State
utilized the CAMx regional modeling
system to model cumulative impacts
across all BART-eligible sources at Class
I areas. As set forth in the BART
guidelines, a State may consider
exempting all its BART-eligible sources
from BART by conducting analyses that
show that all of the emissions from
BART-eligible sources in the State,
taken together, are not reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute
visibility impairment. To make such a
showing, a State could use CALPUFF or
another appropriate dispersion model to
evaluate the impacts of individual
sources on downwind Class I areas,
aggregating those impacts to determine
the collective contribution from allBART eligible sources in the State. A
State with a sufficiently large number of
BART-eligible sources could also make
such a showing using a photochemical
grid model.16 EPA determined that the
option of allowing a State to
demonstrate that the full group of
BART-eligible sources in the State does
not contribute to visibility impairment
would, by default, satisfy an individual
16 For regional haze applications, regional scale
modeling typically involves use of a photochemical
grid model that is capable of simulating aerosol
chemistry, transport, and deposition of airborne
pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone.
Regional scale air quality models are generally
applied for geographic scales ranging from a
multistate to the continental scale. Because of the
design and intended applications of grid models,
they may not be appropriate for BART assessments,
so States should consult with the appropriate EPA
Regional Office prior to carrying out any such
modeling.
PO 00000
Frm 00208
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11985
source contribution assessment. As
previously discussed, the State had
concerns with the use of CALPUFF, so
it elected to use the photochemical
model CAMx to model cumulative
impacts of all BART-eligible sources
across Class I areas.
Similar to the Q/d analysis, the State
utilized a 0.5 dv impact as screening a
threshold of the CAMx modeling
results. For all cumulative CAMx
modeling scenarios, the scenario design
involved zeroing the actual point source
emissions of BART-eligible sources on a
facility-wide basis. In zeroing BARTeligible facility emissions, emphasis was
placed upon the elevated point source
emissions. The BART-eligible source list
included distinctions for CAIR versus
non-CAIR units (in lieu of CAIR as
BART). This analysis is described in
detail in the TSD for this rulemaking
and in appendix 9 of the SIP.
In summary, considering a 12 km
grid, emissions from non-EGU BARTeligible sources and natural background
conditions, the maximum impact
modeled is 0.63 dv (BOWA) with a
maximum of only two days above the
0.5 dv threshold (ISLE). Under the 20
percent best natural background
conditions, the maximum impact
increases to 0.93 dv (BOWA), and the
maximum frequency of impacts greater
than 0.5 dv is five days (ISLE). Because
there were impacts greater than the 0.5
dv threshold, the State could not
provide a blanket exemption for all nonEGU BART-eligible sources considering
just the results of the CAMx modeling.
The State did not consider these
analyses to be definitive so it considered
actual emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from the sources evaluated in
the modeling. Because eleven of the
non-EGU BART-eligible sources (the
same eleven as previously identified in
table 6) comprise approximately 11
percent (2,547 tpy of SO2, NOX and PM)
of the total of actual emissions (22,911
tpy of SO2, NOX and PM) from all
fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible
sources, the State determined that these
eleven sources were unlikely to play a
significant role in the cumulative
modeled visibility impacts.
Although Iowa did not strictly follow
the guidelines for exempting a source,
specifically with respect to modeling a
BART-eligible source using maximum
actual emissions, in this case EPA has
determined that Iowa’s alternative
analysis should result in an acceptable
conclusion to exempt these eleven
sources for the following reasons. First,
the State’s analysis used both actual
emissions on a facility-wide basis and
potential emissions for the BARTeligible units. When looking at the
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11986
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
actual emissions facility-wide, for many
of the sources, it was clear that had the
maximum actual emissions been
modeled using CALPUFF, the results
would indicate minimal visibility
impacts. This was apparent when
comparing the modeled plant analysis
emission inputs with the actual
emissions. In almost all cases the sum
of the actual emissions of visibility
impairing emissions were significantly
less than those used in the model plant
analysis. The same is also true when
looking at the potential emissions for
many of these sources. Given that most
of these non-EGU units do not have
continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) that can be used for an
accurate calculation of actual maximum
24-hour emission rate, using both the
actual annual emissions facility-wide
and potential emissions for the BARTeligible units provides confidence that
these sources can be excluded as BART
sources. Second, the Q/d analysis Iowa
used provided a good indication of
those sources where additional analysis
might be warranted. Although we have
not specifically relied on the Q/d
analysis for our approval of BART
exemptions, we do believe it was
informative and the use of Q/5d is fairly
conservative for this type of an analysis.
We believe that the State reasonably
demonstrated that the eleven non-EGU
BART-eligible sources (listed above in
table 6) are not BART-subject. The
remaining discussion of this section will
focus on the three remaining non-EGU
BART-eligible facilities that were not
exempted: Equistar Chemical, Holcim,
and ADM-Clinton.
Equistar Chemical’s potential and
actual emissions are dominated by
VOCs, and not SO2, NOX or PM. While
potential emissions of SO2 and NOX
exceed the 5,000 tpy model plant
threshold, the actual emissions are far
below the 3,000 tpy threshold—729 tons
per year of NOX and SO2 combined. As
such, the State determined that Equistar
Chemical would not contribute impacts
exceeding 0.5 dv, and was therefore not
BART-subject. EPA agrees with this
determination.
Both Holcim and ADM-Clinton fail
the Q/d and CALPUFF model plant
analyses. Almost all Q/d metrics exceed
the 1.0 significance level, while SO2 and
NOX emissions (potentials and actual
emissions) exceed both the 3,000 and
5,000 tpy scenarios examined with the
CALPUFF model plant application. The
State decided to look at both ADMClinton and Holcim on a case-by-case
basis.
As mentioned previously, the State
found the uncertainties of using the
CALPUFF modeling system for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
determining single source visibility
impacts from sources far removed from
Class I areas very challenging. The State
decided to use an alternative process,
scaling the cumulative modeling
impacts according to emission rates.
The State utilized the maximum dv
impacts from the most relevant CAMx
modeling scenario, at the most stringent
20 percent best natural background
conditions, a value of 0.93 dv to scale
actual SO2, NOX and PM emissions for
both sources. The State zeroed out the
actual SO2, NOX and PM emissions in
the following scenario. Because
Holcim’s SO2, NOX and PM emissions
account for 6,828 tpy of the 22,911 tpy
total non-EGU BART-eligible sources’
SO2, NOX and PM emissions, Holcim’s
proportional share would account for 30
percent of the emissions. If ADMClinton’s SO2, NOX and PM emissions
account for 12,755 tpy of the 22,911 tpy
total non-EGU BART-eligible sources’
SO2, NOX and PM emissions, ADMClinton would account for 56 percent of
the emissions. The State then scaled the
visibility impact attributable to Holcim
and ADM-Clinton. If the maximum
visibility impact from all non-EGU
BART-eligible sources was figured to be
0.93 dv, and Holcim was found to
contribute approximately 30 percent to
that impairment, it could be estimated
that Holcim would contribute
approximately 0.28 dv visibility
impairment (below the 0.5 dv
threshold). Using the same method,
ADM-Clinton was found to contribute
approximately 56 percent to the
maximum visibility impairment, or
approximately 0.52 dv, above the 0.5 dv
threshold. The State found that this
additional information supported a
determination that Holcim did not cause
or contribute to visibility impairment at
any Class I area, and was not BARTsubject, however, the same
determination for ADM Clinton could
not be made according to this analysis.
As described previously, from the
three screening approaches the State
used, ADM-Clinton could not be ruled
out from contributing to visibility
impairment at Class I areas. However, at
the time the State drafted the SIP, ADMClinton was going through a PSD
permitting activity to construct new
boilers. In the permit for the new boilers
(Permit 05–A–314), ADM-Clinton was
required to shut down boilers 1–14 no
later than 180 days after the startup of
the new boilers.17 This includes the two
BART-eligible boilers, numbers 7 and 8.
We have confirmed with the State that
these boilers have indeed shut down. In
17 https://aqbweb.iowadnr.gov/data/23/2301006/
05A314P.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00209
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the PSD permit for the new boilers that
replaced boilers 7 and 8, the facility was
required to install and operate a
baghouse, selective non-catalytic
reduction, and limestone injection flue
gas desulfurization on the new boiler
units (three coal burning and two
natural gas; five in total). The
construction permit limited the
emissions of the replacement boiler
units through an annual cap applicable
across all five new units. SO2 emissions
are not to exceed 3,629 tpy and NOX
emissions are not to exceed 1,445 tpy.
These limits represent best available
control technology (BACT) emission
rates as required under the PSD
program.18 Because the BART-eligible
boilers were permanently shut down
pursuant to an enforceable PSD permit,
and the replacement boilers satisfy
BACT, the State concluded that ADMClinton was not subject to BART. EPA
agrees with this determination.
EPA believes the State’s approach to
the photochemical modeling analysis
does not fully account for the non-linear
aspects of photochemical modeling and
does not fully acknowledge that
modeled impacts will not necessarily be
directly proportional to the modeled
emissions. However, EPA believes it is
unlikely that Holcim will have visibility
impacts on a Class I area greater than 0.5
dv for the following reasons. First, all
modeled sources, including Holcim, are
located a significant distance from any
Class I area, with Holcim being 527 km
from the nearest Class I area. Second,
the modeling inputs showed that
emissions from Holcim constituted only
30 percent of total emissions from the
modeled sources. Third, the maximum
modeled impacts from this group of
sources at any Class I area using average
natural background conditions is 0.64
dv with at most 2 days of impacts over
0.5 dv. Fourth, looking at all the
maximum modeled impacts at all seven
Class I areas shows an average
maximum impact of 0.44 dv, indicating
that no single source is likely the cause
for the majority of impacts at any single
Class I area. Finally, ADM-Clinton
represents 56 percent of the visibility
impairing emissions of the modeled
sources and this source’s BART eligible
units have been permanently shut
down, thus EPA anticipates impacts
from the remaining group of sources
would have less than a 0.5 dv impact.
Based on these factors, EPA believes
that State adequately demonstrated that
Holcim does not cause or contribute to
18 The applicable State permit numbers are 05–A–
313–P, 05–A–314–P, 05–A–315–P for the coal-fired
boilers, and 05–A–316–P, 05–A–317–P for the
natural gas fired boilers.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
visibility impairment in any Class I
areas, and therefore is not subject to
BART.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. EGU BART Evaluation for PM
As the State relied on CAIR to address
NOX and SO2 emissions, only an
evaluation for PM was conducted for
BART-eligible EGUs. There is no PM
presumptive emission rate for EGUs
with a capacity of 750 MW or greater.
The State again relied on its CALPUFF
model plant analysis for analyzing EGU
PM emissions. Model year 2004 was
selected in order to generate maximum
impacts (the State’s analysis showed
that 2004 data generated impacts that
exceeded 2002 and 2003 data). Two
scenarios were completed using
emission rates of 10,000 and 5,000 tpy
of PM, NOX, or SO2 emissions. The
model plant configuration was modified
to reflect idealized EGU stack
parameters, obtained from the EPA’s
CALPUFF analysis in support of the
June 2005 changes to the RHR.
Graphical results are given on page 46
of Appendix 9 to the SIP.
No impacts above 0.5 dv were
observed at any Class I area under
annually averaged natural background
conditions with PM emissions of 10,000
tpy. Under the 20 percent best natural
background conditions no impacts
exceeding the 98th percentile occur.
Reducing the emissions to 5,000 tpy, no
impacts above 0.5 dv were produced
under annually averaged background
conditions or 20 percent best natural
background conditions. In terms of
scale, Iowa’s largest PM10 source (an
EGU that is not BART-eligible) emits
3,174 tpy (based on a facility-wide
value), approximately 36.5 percent
below the emission rate which yielded
no visibility impacts. Based upon these
results the State concluded, and the
EPA agrees, that PM emissions from
BART-eligible EGUs in the State of Iowa
would not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any nearby
Class I area, and are therefore not
subject to BART for PM.
G. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
EPA’s visibility regulations direct
States to coordinate their RAVI LTS and
monitoring provisions with those for
regional haze, as explained in section
III. F. of this action. Under EPA’s RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a State
SIP must address any integral vistas
identified by 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
located outside the boundary of the
mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
Visibility in any mandatory Class I
Federal area includes any integral vista
associated with that area. Iowa has no
Class I areas, and FLMs did not identify
any integral vistas affected by Iowa
sources. Therefore, the Iowa regional
haze SIP submittal is not required to
address the two requirements regarding
coordination of the regional haze SIP
with the RAVI LTS and monitoring
provisions.
H. Monitoring Strategy
Because it does not host a Class I area,
Iowa is not required to develop a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting regional
haze impairment that is representative
of Class I areas within the State.
However, Iowa is required to establish
procedures by which monitoring data
and other information is used to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the State to regional haze
impairment at Class I areas outside of
the State.
There are two IMPROVE monitoring
protocol sites (sites that are not
managed directly by IMPROVE, but by
the operating agency) which are
operated in the State. One is located at
Lake Viking State Park in southwestern
Iowa, and the second is located at Lake
Sugema Wildlife Management Area in
southeastern Iowa. The monitors began
operation in June 2002. Descriptions of
these monitoring sites and methods for
data validation can be found in Chapter
6 of the State’s Regional Haze SIP. The
State has provided a commitment in
Chapter 6 of the SIP to maintain the
IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites
contingent upon continued national
funding.
Data from IMPROVE protocol
monitors is analyzed by a national
laboratory (funded via an interagency
agreement between the EPA and the
National Park Service) and uploaded by
the laboratory into two publicly
available databases at https://vista.cira.
colostate.edu/improve and https://vista.
cira.colostate.edu/views/. Any
supplemental monitoring data from
additional monitoring equipment at
each site is publicly available at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs.
EPA believes the State’s commitments
to utilize data from these sites, or any
other EPA-approved monitoring
network location, to characterize and
model conditions within the State and
to compare visibility conditions in the
State to visibility impairment at Class I
areas hosted by other States. EPA
proposes that Iowa has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
PO 00000
Frm 00210
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11987
I. Emissions Inventory
Iowa was required to develop a
statewide emissions inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area.
This inventory must include baseline
year emissions, emissions for the most
recent year that data is available, and
estimates of future year emissions. The
State provided an inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5,
PM10, and ammonia (NH3). As required,
the inventory includes emissions for a
baseline year (2002), the most recent
year for which data are available, and
estimates of future year (2018) projected
emissions along with a commitment to
update the inventory periodically.
The 2002 point source inventory was
derived from the 2002 National
Emission Inventory (NEI).19 All other
source category emission inventories
were developed by CENRAP and its
contractors as part of the development
of a baseline inventory for the 2002
modeling inventory.20 A summary of
the 2002 baseline emissions inventory
can be found in Chapter 7 of the SIP.
Methodologies for the development of
the 2002 emissions inventories can be
found in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
To estimate the 2018 future year
emissions the State grew the 2002
emissions using the Economic Growth
Analysis System (EGAS) 5, MOBILE 6
and NONROAD vehicle emissions
software. The State also used the IPM to
forecast EGU emissions.
As shown in table 7, the State made
a modification to the estimated 2018
SO2 emissions for the point source EGU
source category. In tables 7 and 8, the
2002 and 2018 point source EGU SO2
emissions are 135,833 and 160,733 tons
per year (tpy), respectively. The State
was concerned with the accuracy of the
2018 (160,733 tpy) value. CENRAP
utilized the ‘‘RPO version 2.1.9’’ IPM
(referred to as IPM v2.1.9) predictions to
generate the 2018 BaseG scenario,21 in
which total Iowa EGU SO2 emissions
were forecast to be approximately
147,305 tpy. During review of the
19 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002
inventory.html.
20 https://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
21 The CENRAP modeling emissions inventory
consists of several distinct datasets: the 2002
basecase for model performance evaluation, 2002
typical, 2018 basecase, and the 2018 control
strategy scenario. The inventory was refined
through several rounds of CENRAP workgroup
review and revision, beginning with the initial
BaseA version and culminating in the BaseG
inventory.
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11988
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
CENRAP BaseE2 modeling, errors were
identified in the 2018 Iowa EGU
emissions. Among the errors, certain
EGU emissions were overestimated
when a growth methodology was
applied twice, once with EGAS and
then again within IPM. Following error
identification, corrections were
submitted for inclusion in the BaseF
(and subsequent BaseG) modeling
scenarios. After the corrections, 2018
EGU SO2 emissions totaled 151,354 tpy.
Thus, the State believed the value of
160,733 tpy provided through the
emissions inventory report developed
by a CENRAP contractor to be
inaccurate.22 The State found that the
corrected EGU SO2 emissions estimate
of 151,354 tpy for 2018 is conservative,
given updated results from IPM version
3.0 (discussed in Chapter 11 of the SIP)
and Iowa’s participation in CAIR.
TABLE 7—2002 IOWA EMISSIONS SUMMARY
[Tons per year]
VOC
PM2.5
NOX
PM10
NH3
SO2
Ammonia ..................................................
Area ..........................................................
Area Fire ..................................................
Fugitive Dust ............................................
Off road ....................................................
On road ....................................................
Point EGU ................................................
Point Fire ..................................................
Point NonEGU .........................................
Road dust .................................................
Wildfire .....................................................
Biogenic ...................................................
0
106,712
1,120
0
63,694
87,392
1,075
545
41,184
0
5
408,291
0
6,782
138
0
92,595
120,621
81,761
33
35,812
0
29
25,732
0
11,540
4,681
38,666
8,904
1,747
4,527
594
7,651
19,525
218
........................
0
12,182
4,893
193,331
9,707
2,373
9,424
700
17495
127,882
224
........................
258,915
6.560
0
0
79
3,064
0
48
3,317
0
0
........................
0
3,184
160
0
9,037
3,200
135,833
35
51,836
0
8
........................
Total ..................................................
710,018
363,503
98,053
378,211
271,983
203,293
TABLE 8—2018 IOWA PROJECTED EMISSIONS SUMMARY
[Tons per year]
VOC
PM2.5
NOX
PM10
NH3
SO2
Ammonia ..................................................
Area ..........................................................
Area Fire ..................................................
Fugitive Dust ............................................
Off road ....................................................
On road ....................................................
Point EGU ................................................
Point Fire ..................................................
Point NonEGU .........................................
Road dust .................................................
Wildfire .....................................................
Biogenic ...................................................
0
127,849
1,120
0
37,143
36,404
1,802
547
56,714
0
5
408,291
0
7,476
138
0
60,210
33,975
65,629
33
40,964
0
29
25,732
0
10,677
4,681
40,608
5,582
708
9,578
596
10,151
17,712
218
........................
0
11,510
4,893
203,044
6,088
708
11,232
702
21,737
114,889
224
........................
302,012
13,304
0
0
101
4,225
713
49
5,763
0
0
........................
0
3,224
160
0
220
400
151,354
36
42,862
0
8
........................
Total ..................................................
669,875
234,186
100,511
375,027
326,167
198,264
EPA proposes that the 2002 and 2018
statewide emissions inventories and the
State’s method for developing the 2018
emissions inventory meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v)
of the regional haze rule.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
J. Reporting Requirements
EPA has reviewed and believes the
State’s reporting strategy meets the
requirements of the regional haze rule.
The State is required to maintain
reporting, record keeping and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility improvements. In
communications with the EPA, Iowa
asserts that by complying with the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule, in addition to
the State’s commitment (page 56,
Chapter 12 of the SIP) to complete the
periodic review as required in 40 CFR
51.308(g), for which the most recent or
most appropriate emissions data will be
used, such as CEMS data, it has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v)
and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR.
The EPA believes the State’s methods of
reporting and record keeping of
emissions meet the requirement of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR.
K. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
The State of Iowa met the FLM
consultation requirement by sending the
draft SIP to the FLMs on November 26,
2007, and notifying the FLMs of the
public hearing on January 30, 2008. 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires States to
provide a description of how they
addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. Iowa has provided this in
Appendix 2.1 of the SIP. EPA believes
that Iowa adequately responded to the
comments received from the FLMs and
from EPA.
22 The ‘‘Consolidation of Emissions
Inventories’’—Pechan Report No. 05.03.002/
9500.003.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00211
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Regional haze SIPs must also provide
procedures for continuing consultation
between the State and FLMs on the
implementation of 40 CFR 51.308,
including development and review of
SIP revisions and 5-year progress
reports, and on the implementation of
other programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in
Class I areas. The State of Iowa has
committed to continuing to coordinate
and consult with the FLMs during the
development of future progress reports
and plan revisions, as well as during the
implementation of programs having the
potential to contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas.
EPA proposes to find that the State of
Iowa has satisfied the consultation
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year
Progress Reports
Iowa acknowledged the requirement
under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to submit
periodic progress reports and regional
haze SIP revisions, with the first report
due by July 31, 2018, and revisions due
every ten years thereafter. Iowa has
committed to meeting this requirement.
Iowa also acknowledged the
requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to
submit a progress report in the form of
a SIP revision every five years following
this initial SIP submittal. Iowa
committed to submitting the required
five year SIP revision, evaluating the
progress made towards the RPGs for
each mandatory Class I area which may
be affected by emissions from Iowa
sources. Iowa committed to addressing
all the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308
(g), including a review of the changes in
the emission inventory, a review of the
periodic reporting requirements, and a
determination of whether additional
action is needed according to 40 CFR
51.308(h).
We propose to find that Iowa has
satisfied the requirements to submit
periodic SIP revisions and progress
reports as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)–
(h).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Proposed Actions
We propose a limited approval of
Iowa’s March 25, 2008 SIP revision
addressing regional haze. In a separate
action, EPA has proposed a limited
disapproval of the Iowa 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. 76
FR 82219. We are not proposing to take
action in today’s rulemaking on issues
associated with Iowa’s reliance on CAIR
in its regional haze SIP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
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’’
by the 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, 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 flexibility analysis
would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of State
action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.
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, the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00212
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11989
governments in the aggregate; or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more.
Under section 205, the 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 the 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 the approval
action proposed 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 the 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
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
11990
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 the
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
the 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:48 Feb 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA, the
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
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.
Karl Brooks,
Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region
7.
[FR Doc. 2012–4684 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0027; FRL–9638–6]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert
Air Quality Management District and
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District
(MDAQMD) and Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District
(YSAQMD) portions of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) emissions from glass melting
furnaces and biomass boilers. We are
approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00213
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Any comments must arrive by
March 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0027, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments 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
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. 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.
Docket: Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the
docket are listed at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not
be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
DATES:
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rules?
E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM
28FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11974-11990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4684]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0150, FRL-9638-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
limited approval of a revision to the Iowa State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of Iowa on March 25, 2008, that addresses
regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision
addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and
the EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future and remedy
any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class
I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision
to implement the regional haze requirements for Iowa on the basis that
the revision, as a whole, strengthens the Iowa SIP. In a separate
action, EPA previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Iowa
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze
SIP arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR). Therefore, we are not taking action in this notice 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-R07-
OAR-2012-0150, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (913) 551-7864 (please alert the individual listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
4. Mail: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101; attention: Chrissy Wolfersberger.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air Planning and Development Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. 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 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.: EPA-R07-OAR-
2012-0150. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through https://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 the 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
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Planning and Development Branch, EPA Region 7 Office, 901 N 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. You may view the hard copy of the
docket
[[Page 11975]]
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger at 901 N 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; by telephone at (913) 551-7864; or
by email at wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
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 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)
G. Monitoring Strategy
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state of Iowa's submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Long-term Strategy
E. Consultation with Other States
F. BART
i. BART Eligible Sources
ii. BART Subject Sources
1. Non-EGUs (Electric Generating Units)
2. EGU BART Evaluation for Particulate Matter (PM)
G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
H. Monitoring Strategy
I. Emissions Inventory
J. Reporting Requirements
K. Consultation With FLMs
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. Proposed Actions
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing a limited approval of Iowa's March 25, 2008, SIP
revision addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and
110(k)(6) because the revision as a whole strengthens the Iowa SIP.\1\
This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support
Document (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited approval
action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and the 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 the 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.
\2\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support
Document for Iowa Regional Haze Submittal,'' is included in the
public docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the
Iowa 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. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing
to take action in today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's
reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. Comments on our proposed
limited disapproval of Iowa's regional haze SIP may be directed to the
docket for that rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
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
(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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress set
forth 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 Federal Class I areas
\4\ in 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'' (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with Section 169A of the CAA, the EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate additional areas
as Class I areas, which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress added section 169B to
focus attention on 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
[[Page 11976]]
the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the Federal 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. 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
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, the EPA has
encouraged the States and tribes across the United States to address
visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze
and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their States and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants leading to
regional haze.
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 the 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 (dv) \5\ as the principal metric
or unit for expressing visibility. 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 dv is a more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because
each dv change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived
by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
dv.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A deciview is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as ``a haze index
derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes
in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception
across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly
impaired.''
\6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dv 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 midway through each ten-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires States to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, States must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to States regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the 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
[[Page 11977]]
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 the 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 the 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 the EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 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 emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of
progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of
progress 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 emission 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, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
States in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that States should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
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 emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA's approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source.
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, the EPA made just such a
demonstration for CAIR. 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 the EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which
remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR
Part 97 need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install,
operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address
direct emissions of PM, States were still required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM
[[Page 11978]]
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. 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 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 the CAIR in the interim until the court rules
on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.
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, 40 CFR 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. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
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) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG;
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment Long-Term Strategy
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 in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b)
and (c). The State must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on
or before this date. The State must also submit the first such
coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress toward 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 be submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision and report on both regional haze and RAVI
impairment.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) 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
Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be coordinated with
the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance
with this requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the
IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the
network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze
SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy
must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE
network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every
ten years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
[[Page 11979]]
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 40 CFR 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. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least sixty days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
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 having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State of Iowa's submittal?
EPA believes that the State has met the requirements of the CAA
sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) which require that the State adopt a SIP
after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA also believes that the
State has met the requirements of the specific procedural requirements
for SIP revisions promulgated at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area of a public hearing on proposed
revisions, at least a 30-day public comment period, and the opportunity
for a public hearing, and that the State, in accordance with its laws,
submit the revision to EPA for approval. Specific information on Iowa's
rulemaking, regional haze SIP development and the public information
process is included in Chapter 2, and Appendix 2.1, of the State of
Iowa's regional haze SIP, which is included in the docket of this
proposed rulemaking.
A. Affected Class I Areas
There are no Class I areas hosted by the State of Iowa, and no
portion of land within the State of Iowa is within 300 kilometers (km)
of a Class I area. However, States without Class I areas are still
required to submit SIPs that address the apportionment of visibility
impact from the emissions generated by sources within the State's
borders at Class I areas hosted by other States.
The State of Iowa participated in the planning efforts of the
CENRAP which is affiliated with the Central States Air Resource
Agencies (CENSARA). This RPO includes nine States--Nebraska, Iowa,
Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
CENRAP and its contractors provided air quality modeling to the States
to help them determine whether sources located within the State can be
reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in
a Class I area. The modeling conducted relied on baseline year (2002)
and future planning year (2018) emissions inventories that were
prepared with participation from each of the CENRAP States.
The State of Iowa relied upon the regional modeling work performed
by CENRAP for determining the impact that sources within the State
might have on Class I areas in the region and beyond. The modeling was
based on PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) for the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) photochemical
model. A detailed description of the source apportionment methods
utilized by CENRAP is available in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
The following Class I areas were evaluated for contribution by the
State of Iowa:
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota (BOWA).
Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota (VOYA).
Seney Wilderness Area, Michigan (SENE).
Isle Royale National Park, Michigan (ISLE).
Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri (HEGL).
Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri (MING).
Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas (CACR).
Upper Buffalo Wilderness, Arkansas (UPBU).
Badlands National Park, South Dakota (BADL).
Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota (WICA).
BOWA, VOYA, SENE and ISLE are known as the Northern Midwest Class I
areas. According to the CENRAP PSAT results, the combined effect of all
Iowa emissions upon the total modeled visibility impairment at the four
Northern Midwest Class I areas is approximately 4 to 5 percent in both
2002 and 2018. The data were calculated in accordance with the new
IMPROVE equation and are representative of those days with the worst 20
percent visibility conditions.
Table 1--Percent Contribution of Iowa, Minnesota, and Michigan to Visibility Impairment at the Northern Midwest Class I Areas, 20 Percent Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Minnesota Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters......................................... 3.7 3.9 25.6 28.5 2.3 2.7
Voyagers................................................ 3.8 4.0 29.1 30.4 1.4 1.6
Isle Royale............................................. 4.5 4.9 11.5 12.5 11.1 12.8
Seney................................................... 4.2 4.8 3.9 4.4 9.6 12.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSAT results provided above are in terms of percentages of
total visibility impairment. The State of Iowa found them useful for
determining the proportion of the State's contribution in relation to
the total modeled visibility impairment at a Class I area. However,
characterizing visibility impairment using just percentages can fail to
identify the magnitude of the contribution. For example, Iowa's percent
contributions increase between 2002 and 2018, but the actual light
extinction values decrease between the same years.
[[Page 11980]]
Table 2--Iowa's Absolute Contribution to Visibility Impairment, Northern Midwest Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst 20 percent days modeled extinction (Mm-1)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Class I area total
---------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2018 2002 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters................................. 2.39 2.08 64.87 53.44
Voyagers........................................ 2.60 1.97 56.45 48.84
Isle Royale..................................... 3.23 3.02 71.40 61.26
Seney........................................... 4.54 3.95 107.92 82.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa's contributions to visibility impairment, as calculated
through light extinction using the new IMPROVE equation, are provided
in Table 2. The total modeled visibility impairment for each Class I
area are also shown in the table. Iowa emissions sources cumulatively
contribute only 2.2-4.5 Mm-1 of the 56-107 Mm-1 total modeled
visibility impairment at the Northern Midwest Class I areas in 2002. In
tandem, Iowa's percentage and absolute contributions describe the
impacts emissions sources in Iowa may have upon nearby Class I areas.
Another way to assess Iowa's contribution to visibility impairment
is to use the dv metric. As shown by Table 3, modeling results show
that visibility improvements resulting from the elimination of all Iowa
sources yield impacts below 0.5 dv.
Table 3--Estimated 2018 Level of Visibility Impairment in the Absence of All Iowa Emissions Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Worst 20%
2018 Worst 20% less Iowa's Iowa's visibility
(dv) contribution (dv) & impacts (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boundary Waters..................................... 18.5 18.1 0.4
Voyagers............................................ 17.7 17.4 0.3
Isle Royale......................................... 19.6 19.2 0.4
Seney............................................... 22.2 21.8 0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State determined that when considered collectively, the data in
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show that Iowa sources were responsible for a
minimal contribution to visibility impairment at the Northern Midwest
Class I areas.
Iowa's contributions to the Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas
(HEGL, UPBU, CACR, MING) in terms of percentage contribution to
visibility extension were less than to the Northern Midwest Class I
areas. PSAT analysis showed that Iowa sources contributed approximately
1.6-2.7 percent to the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent
worst visibility days in 2018 at these Class I areas.
PSAT analysis showed that Iowa sources contributed approximately
1.6 percent to the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days in 2018 at the BADL and approximately 1.2 percent to
the total visibility extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days
in 2018 at the Wind Cave National Park, an impact which Iowa determined
to be insignificant.
EPA believes the State of Iowa adequately identified the Class I
areas impacted by emissions from Iowa sources and the State adequately
determined the apportionment of those pollutants from sources located
within the State.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
States that host Class I areas are required to estimate the
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions of those Class I
areas. As Iowa does not host a Class I area, it is not required to
estimate these metrics.
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
States hosting Class I areas have established RPGs, and have made
assessments regarding whether emission reductions are needed from
sources in Iowa in order to meet their RPG. This consultation is
described in Section IV. E of this rulemaking. EPA is proposing to
determine that the State has met the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii) of the RHR.
D. Long-Term Strategy
As discussed in greater detail in section IV. I. of this proposed
rulemaking, the emissions inventory used in the State's regional haze
technical analyses was developed by CENRAP. The 2018 emissions
inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and applying
reductions expected from Federal and State regulations affecting the
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. The emissions inventory
for Iowa projects changes to point, area and mobile source inventories
by the end of the first implementation period resulting from population
growth, industrial, energy and natural resources development, land
management, and air pollution control.
There are many Federal and State control programs being implemented
that the State of Iowa anticipates will reduce emissions between the
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these
control programs are included in the modeling analysis and are
projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement by 2018 in the
CENRAP and MRPO Class I areas. Iowa considered the minor and major new
source review programs (NSR), nonattainment new source review programs
(NNSR), prevention of significant deterioration permits (PSD), CAIR,
the heavy duty highway diesel rule, the clean air non-road diesel rule,
other on-road and non-road mobile source programs, operating permits,
pertinent new source performance standards (NSPS), national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), associated maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, and Integrated Planning
Model (IPM) \8\ results in developing its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11981]]
In a separate notice proposing limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIPs of a number of States, including Iowa, 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 reasonable progress goals. (76 FR 82219, December 30,
2011). In that notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Iowa's LTS
insofar as it relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are not taking action
on that aspect of the long-term strategy in this notice. Comments on
that proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0729.
In order to mitigate the impact of construction activities, the
State of Iowa's rule on fugitive dust (567 IAC 23.3(2)``c'') states
that reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent the discharge of
visible emissions of airborne dust beyond the lot line of the property
from which the emissions originated. The State also requires minor NSR
permits for aggregate processing plants, concrete batch plants, and
asphalt plants. Portable aggregate, concrete, or asphalt plants must
notify the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) thirty days
before transferring the equipment to a new location to allow for review
of the emissions impacts on national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The IDNR would notify the portable plant if there are
potential adverse impacts on the NAAQS. A more stringent emission
standard and the installation of additional control equipment would be
required if the relocation would prevent the attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS. Iowa determined that no additional measures were needed
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities for purposes of
visibility improvement, and EPA agrees with this determination.
Iowa demonstrated that source retirement and replacement schedules
were taken into account, to the extent possible, when developing inputs
for the IPM that was used in the CENRAP modeling analysis.
Iowa does not have a smoke management program at this time. Iowa
notes that the CENRAP PSAT modeling indicates that fires in Iowa do not
significantly contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas, and
therefore believes that a smoke management program is not needed for
purposes of visibility improvement at this time.
The State has determined, and the EPA agrees, that the
implementation of the on the books and on the way controls mentioned
above are the control measures necessary for the State to achieve its
apportionment of emission reductions agreed upon through the
consultation process (discussed in greater detail below and in Section
IV.E of this proposed rulemaking) as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
E. Consultation With Other States
Iowa participated with the central consultation group, a subset of
the CENRAP. This group was coordinated by the States of Missouri and
Arkansas. Other participants include Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Oklahoma,
Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, FLMs, other RPOs, and tribes. In addition
to participation in the CENRAP regional planning process, the SIP
indicates that Iowa also participated in the Midwest Class I area
consultation group, coordinated by the States of Minnesota and
Michigan, which included participation from the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, as well as Tribal lands in the
five States that are part of the Midwest Planning Organization (MRPO).
In a letter dated July 23, 2007,\9\ the central consultation group
determined that additional reductions beyond existing and proposed
controls, through both State and Federal requirements, would not be
necessary from the State of Iowa in order for the uniform rate of
progress to be met at each of the Class I areas in the States of
Missouri and Arkansas (HEGL, MING, CACR, and the UPBU). EPA believes
that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between these
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ State consultation letters are provided in Appendix 10 of
the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa communicated directly with the State of South Dakota, via
letters dated May 31, 2007, and June 18, 2007, regarding visibility
impacts at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. The State of South
Dakota asked the State of Iowa for any analysis that it conducted to
determine impacts, if any, sources in Iowa may have on the South Dakota
Class I areas. The State of Iowa responded that source PSAT analysis
was available on the CENRAP Web site titled ``PSAT Viz Tool 27-April
2007.'' Iowa explained the analysis showed that sources in the State of
Iowa contributed approximately 1.6 percent to the total visibility
extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility days in 2018 at Badlands
and approximately 1.2 percent to the total visibility extinction on the
20 percent worst visibility days in 2018 at Wind Cave, which Iowa
considered to be an insignificant contribution. The State of Iowa did
not receive a response or request for additional information from the
State of South Dakota. EPA believes that this satisfies the requirement
for consultation between these two States.
The State of Iowa also communicated directly with the State of
Oklahoma regarding potential visibility impacts of Iowa sources on the
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. In a letter dated February 25, 2008,
the State of Oklahoma invited States that had a projected contribution
of at least 1 Mm-1 in 2018 visibility impact at Wichita Mountains to
participate in its consultation process. The letter goes on to
determine that, after evaluation, in the 2018 modeling projections for
the 20 percent worst visibility days at Wichita Mountains,
anthropogenic emissions from the sources in the State of Iowa were not
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at
Wichita Mountains and that the State of Oklahoma was not requesting
that the State of Iowa consider additional emission reductions. EPA
believes that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between
these two States.
In a letter dated September 19, 2007, the State of Minnesota
determined that the State of Iowa (among other States), was a
significant contributor to visibility impairment at Voyageurs National
Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Attachments provided
with the letter indicated that the State of Minnesota utilized Lake
Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) trajectory analysis and
CENRAP PSAT analysis (for baseline years) to determine if a State
contributed 5 percent or more to visibility impairment at the two
Minnesota Class I areas. A contribution of 5 percent was considered by
the State of Minnesota to be significant. The LADCO trajectory analysis
estimated contributions from emissions from the State of Iowa to be
approximately 7.4 percent at Boundary Waters and approximately 10.2
percent at Voyageurs. The CENRAP PSAT modeling estimated contributions
from emissions from the State of Iowa to be approximately 3.5 percent
at Boundary Waters and approximately 3.8 percent at Voyageurs.
In its letter, the State of Minnesota asked the State of Iowa to:
``* * * evaluate further reductions of SO2 from electric
generating units (EGU) in order to reduce SO2 emissions by
2018 to a rate that is more comparable to the emissions rate projected
for 2018 for EGU sources in Minnesota, approximately 0.25 lbs/MMBtu.''
The State of Minnesota also asked the State of Iowa to make a
commitment to
[[Page 11982]]
review, by 2013, the potential emission reductions that could be gained
from control of industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers
and other point sources (such as reciprocating engines and turbines).
The State of Iowa responded to the State of Minnesota in a letter dated
November 1, 2007, communicating that it would not commit to evaluate
further reductions of SO2 from EGUs because the State was
participating in the CAIR and because the State of Iowa had concerns
with the State of Minnesota's interpretations of the LADCO/Minnesota
four-factor analysis for reasonable progress. The State of Minnesota
relied upon information from its four-factor analysis as an appendix to
its request letter. The State of Iowa considered the State of
Minnesota's cost per deciview improvement figures, in a range of
approximately $3 billion/dv to $3.3 billion/dv, to be unreasonable for
SO2 control beyond CAIR for EGUs in the State of Iowa. The
State of Iowa also considered the State of Minnesota's dollar per
deciview figures, in a range of approximately $2.8 billion/dv to $3.4
billion/dv, to be unreasonable for control of ICIs. The State explained
that a similar argument could be made for reciprocating engines and
combustion engines.
The State of Iowa also questioned the State of Minnesota's use of
the LADCO trajectory analysis to determine significance of emissions
from surrounding States because the trajectory analysis was based upon
theoretical air flow and did not account for chemical reactions in the
atmosphere that is accounted for in the CENRAP PSAT modeling. Because
the CENRAP PSAT modeling indicated that emissions from the State of
Iowa contribute less than 5 percent to impairment at Minnesota Class I
areas, the State of Iowa did not consider emissions from sources within
its boundaries to be significant (considering the State of Minnesota's
significance threshold of 5 percent).
Iowa determined that additional controls were unsupported at this
first stage of the regional haze rule, because Minnesota did not
request that controls be installed on specific sources; did not provide
justification on how such controls would lead to visibility improvement
at the Minnesota Class I areas; did not provide documentation or
otherwise consult with Iowa regarding any specific visibility
improvement at the Minnesota Class I areas which would result from
controlling Iowa sources; and because of the cost and visibility issues
mentioned above. However on page 38 of the SIP, the State of Iowa does
commit to continued consultation with Minnesota in the future on issues
involving regional haze as requested and warranted. EPA believes that
this satisfies the requirement for consultation between these two
States.
The State of Michigan wrote the State of Iowa a letter, dated
October 26, 2007, stating that it was not asking other States to reduce
emissions for purposes of meeting the requirements of the RHR. EPA
believes that this satisfies the requirement for consultation between
these two States.
In summary, the State of Iowa consulted both directly and through
the RPO process with the States on which Iowa sources may have an
effect. EPA proposes to find that Iowa met the consultation
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and has addressed in its plan
all measures necessary to obtain its share of emission reductions
impacting visibility in Class I areas. 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
F. BART
In the BART determination process, States must address all
significant visibility impairing pollutants. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. As indicated by the BART Guidelines, a State should use its best
judgment in determining whether VOCs, ammonia (NH3) or
ammonia compounds impair visibility in particular Class I areas.\10\
Iowa conducted a quantitative analysis of emissions inventory data to
show that Iowa point source NH3 and VOC emissions do not
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in any Class I area.
This analysis is described in the TSD for this rulemaking, and EPA
agrees with this conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Appendix Y of 40 CFR Part 51-States should exercise
judgment in deciding whether the following pollutants impair
visibility in an area: (4) Volatile organic compounds (VOC), and (5)
Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A state should use its best judgment
in deciding whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a source are
likely to have an impact on visibility in an area. Certain types of
VOC emissions, for example, are more likely to form secondary
organic aerosols than others. Similarly, controlling ammonia
emissions in some areas may not have a significant impact on
visibility. A state need not provide a formal showing of an
individual decision that a source of VOC or ammonia emissions is not
subject to BART review. Because air quality modeling may not be
feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia, a state should
also exercise its judgment in assessing the degree of visibility
impacts due to emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or ammonia
compounds. A state should fully document the basis for judging that
a VOC or ammonia source merits BART review, including its assessment
of the source's contribution to visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. BART-Eligible Sources
For an emission source to be identified as BART-eligible, the State
used these criteria from the BART Guidelines: (1) One or more emissions
units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the
BART Guidelines; (2) the emission unit was in existence on August 7,
1977 and began operation at some point on or after August 7, 1962; and
(3) the limited potential emissions from all emission units identified
in the previous two items were 250 tons or more per year of any of
these visibility-impairing pollutants: SO2, NOX,
or PM10.
To identify the sources that met the criteria above, Iowa required
sources to self identify as BART-eligible by rule (Iowa Administrative
Code 567-22.9 Special Requirements for Visibility Protection) on a form
supplied by the State. The State reviewed all in-house permitting,
Title V databases, and the submitted forms to determine if a source met
the criteria explained above. This process is outlined in detail in
Appendix 9 of the SIP. The twenty seven BART-eligible facilities
identified are listed in Table 4. EPA proposes to find that the State
appropriately identified the BART-eligible units in the State.
Table 4--Facilities With BART-Eligible Units in the State of Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility
Source category Company name No. BART Emission units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Electric Plant Cedar Falls Utilities...... 07-02-005 Unit 7 (EU10, 1A).
Individually Greater than 250 MMBtu/hour.
Central Iowa Power 88-01-004 Combustion turbines (EU1,
Cooperative (CIPCO)-- EU1G, EU2, EU2G).
Summit Lake Station.
Central Iowa Power 70-08-003 Unit 2 (EU2 & EU
Cooperative (CIPCO)--Fair 2G).
Station.
City of Ames--Steam 85-01-006 Boiler 7 (EU2).
Electric Plant.
Interstate Power and Light-- 29-01-013 Main plant boiler.
Burlington.
[[Page 11983]]
Interstate Power and Light-- 03-03-001 Boiler 4 Sixteen
Lansing. units total.
Interstate Power and Light-- 23-01-014 Boiler 2. Six
ML Kapp. units total.
Interstate Power and Light-- 57-01-042 Boiler 4. Fourteen
Prairie Creek. units total.
MidAmerican Energy Company-- 78-01-026 Boiler 3 (EU003).
Council Bluffs.
MidAmerican Energy Company-- 97-04-010 Boiler 1-3 (EU001-
Neal North. EU003).
MidAmerican Energy Company-- 97-04-011 Boiler 4 (EU003).
Neal South.
Muscatine Power and Water.. 70-01-011 Boiler 8.
Pella Municipal Power Plant 63-02-005 Boilers 6-8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Process Plant................... Equistar Chemicals......... 23-01-004 301 emission units.
Koch Nitrogen Company...... 94-01-005 Ammonia vapor flares and
primary reformer/auxiliary
boiler. 8 units total.
Monsanto Company Muscatine. 70-01-008 Boilers 5-7. 57
emission units total.
Terra Nitrogen Port Neal 97-01-030 Boiler B & auxiliary
Comp. boiler.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Storage and Transfer Units with BP--Bettendorf Terminal.... 82-02-024 Truck loading.
a Total Storage.
BP--Des Moines Terminal.... 77-01-158 Truck loading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Cement Plant.................... Holcim (US) Inc............ 17-01-009 109 emission units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel-fired Boiler................. ADM........................ 23-01-006 7 & 8 boilers.
These boilers will
permanently shut down by 9/
13/08.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron and Steel Mills..................... Bloomfield Foundry, Inc.... 26-01-001 18 emission units.
Griffin Pipe Products Co... 78-01-012 10 emission units.
John Deere Foundry Waterloo 07-01-010 37 emission units.
Keokuk Steel Casings, A 56-01-025 67 emission units.
Matrix Metals Company LLC.
The Dexter Company......... 51-01-005 Tumblers 5 & 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Metal Production............... Alcoa, Inc................. 82-01-002 Hot line mill. 87 emissions
units total.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. BART-Subject Sources
Of the twenty seven BART-eligible facilities, thirteen are fossil-
fuel fired EGUs, and as such, are subject to CAIR for NOX
and SO2. As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing
revisions to the regional haze rule (76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011) a
number of States, including Iowa, relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX, in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 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). As explained above, we are not proposing to take action
in today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's reliance on CAIR
in its regional haze SIP, including BART for SO2 and
NOX for EGUs. In a separate action, EPA has previously
proposed a limited disapproval of Iowa's 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
(DC Circuit) to EPA of CAIR. 76 FR 82219. Comments on that proposed
determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
The PM BART evaluation for these sources is described in section V.F.2
below.
1. Non-EGUs
Iowa used three screening approaches to determine if the remaining
fourteen non-EGU sources identified in table 4 were subject to BART:
Q/d (``Q'' being allowable emissions, in tons per year,
and ``d'' representing the distance in km to the nearest Class I area,
multiplied by a prescribed constant);\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The method, originally developed by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, is a tool to
eliminate distant, insignificant emission sources from ambient
assessments submitted under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. The Q/d method determines a source to
be insignificant if the allowable emissions in tons per year (Q)
divided by a constant times the distance in kilometers (d) is
greater than a value of 1. For example, North Carolina uses a
constant of 20, which was determined empirically. Therefore, a
source could be considered insignificant if its emissions divided by
20 times its distance, in km, from the nearest Class I area is less
than 1. For this application, for determining exemption from BART,
the combined emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM2.5 of a BART-eligible unit could be divided by 20
times the distance to the nearest Class I area. If that quotient is
less than 1, the source would not be subject to BART. If a source is
not found to be exempt under this approach, the CALPUFF screening
analysis could still be used for an exemption determination. Page
25196 of 69 FR 25183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A variety of assessments using CAMx photochemical model (a
regional scale model); and
An emissions inventory analysis.
The RHR established thresholds defining the terms ``cause'' and
``contribute''. A source is said to ``cause'' visibility impairment if
its impact is equal to or greater than 1.0 dv at any Class I area. A
source is said to ``contribute'' to visibility impairment if its
impacts are equal to or greater than 0.5 dv at any Class I area.
Although the RHR affords States the opportunity to adopt a more
stringent deminimis threshold, the State of Iowa chose not to do so.
However, for its three step BART-subject screening analyses, the State
did utilize a threshold that considered the number of days a source's
impact was equal to or greater than 0.5 dv. The State chose seven days
for this threshold.\12\ The State's ``Variegated Protocol in Support of
Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations--May 2006'' explains
that if the State were to find no maximum delta-deciview (ddv) values
greater than 0.5 dv from any of the three screening methods, it would
provide a statewide exemption of the BART sources assessed in the given
scenario. Should initial cumulative modeling quantify ddv impacts
exceeding 0.5 dv, the State would refine its analyses. For each BART
eligible source, information regarding Q/d analyses, CALPUFF model
plant evaluation, and CAMx results were assembled and utilized in a
weight-of-
[[Page 11984]]
evidence approach in the final subject-to-BART determination. If a unit
was not clearly identifiable as either BART-subject or exempt from the
BART determination process, the State provided a case-by-case
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ This is discussed on pages 3 and 11 of the State's
``Variegated Protocol in Support of Best Available Retrofit
Technology Determinations''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 lists each of the fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources
analyzed for Q/d estimates, where ``Q'' is the sum of NOX,
SO2 and PM10 emissions (PM2.5 direct
emission estimates were not available at the time of the calculations
were performed by the State) and ``d'' is the distance between the
source and the nearest Class I area in km. The Q/d estimates were
completed using both actual and potential emissions and were multiplied
by three different constants (20, 10, and 5). Iowa used a 1.0 threshold
as its Q/d screening threshold. Note that potential emissions include
only BART-eligible units while actual emissions represent facility wide
totals, thus in certain cases actual emissions may exceed potentials.
Based on the six Q/d calculations the State categorized each of the
fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources into three categories: (1) Those
sources that clearly exceed the 1.0 threshold, (2) sources well below
the 1.0 threshold and 3) those sources with mixed results. Table 5
shows that only ADM-Clinton and Holcim, Inc. clearly exceed the 1.0
threshold in nearly each of the six Q/d calculations.
Table 5--Nearest Class I Area & Q/d Values for Non-EGU BART-Eligible Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART Units potential emissions (tpy) Facility wide actual emissions (tpy)
Facility name Nearest Distance --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I (km) SO2 NOX PM10 Q/20d Q/10d Q/5d SO2 NOX PM10 Q/20d Q/10d Q/5d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equistar Chemical............ MING........ 531.2 3,883 3,433 258 0.71 1.43 2.85 1 728 52 0.07 0.15 0.29
Koch Nitrogen Company........ BOWA........ 615.4 40 1,399 23 0.12 0.24 0.48 0 442 20 0.04 0.08 0.15
Monsanto-Muscatine........... MING........ 486.8 430 168 81 0.07 0.14 0.28 465 192 8 0.07 0.14 0.27
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal..... BADL........ 487.6 1 916 325 0.13 0.25 0.51 1 461 33 0.05 0.10 0.20
BP-Bettendorf................ MING........ 499.9 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
BP-Des Moines................ HEGL........ 547.0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Holcim, Inc.................. BOWA........ 527.0 28,715 4,738 1,000 3.27 6.54 13.07 3,826 2,813 190 0.65 1.30 2.59
ADM-Clinton.................. MING........ 531.9 6,051 2,117 507 0.82 1.63 3.26 6,479 5,003 1,272 1.20 2.40 4.80
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc...... HEGL........ 448.8 136 68 605 0.09 0.18 0.36 1 0 22 0.00 0.01 0.01
Griffin Pipe Products........ HEGL........ 563.6 190 235 211 0.06 0.11 0.23 2 88 111 0.02 0.04 0.07
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo.. BOWA........ 588.8 0 0 285 0.02 0.05 0.10 9 21 99 0.01 0.02 0.04
Keokuk Steel Casing.......... MING........ 392.0 11 72 554 0.08 0.16 0.32 4 9 67 0.01 0.02 0.04
The Dexter Company........... MING........ 468.9 0 0 541 0.06 0.12 0.23 29 3 112 0.02 0.03 0.06
Alcoa, Inc................... MING........ 501.8 15 400 1,092 0.15 0.30 0.60 2 137 209 0.03 0.07 0.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority of the non-EGU facilities were well below the 1.0
screening threshold in all six Q/d tests. Eleven facilities, listed in
table 6, yield Q/d values well below 1.0 at even the most stringent
potential to emit Q/5d evaluation. The State subsequently determined
that these sources were unlikely to be subject to BART. Iowa indicates,
on page 13 of Appendix 9 to the SIP, that this conclusion is further
supported through evaluation of the Q/d values using facility-wide
actual emissions. The actual emission Q/5d values average 0.09, with
the upper limit at Monsanto Company-Muscatine of only 0.27. The State
determined that these low values suggested any emission reductions
would be insignificant at the nearest Class I area to the source.
Table 6--Non-EGU BART-Eligible Facilities Significantly Below All Q/d
Screening Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Koch Nitrogen Company
Monsanto- Muscatine
Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal
BP-Bettendorf
BP-Des Moines
Bloomfield Foundry, Inc.
Griffin Pipe Products
John Deere Foundry-Waterloo
Keokuk Steel Casing
The Dexter Company
Alcoa, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equistar Chemical is the only facility listed in Table 5 above
where the results are not clear cut. Considering potential emissions,
the Q/20d value is 0.71 with Q/10d and Q/5d exceeding 1.0. Actual
emissions reveal that the most conservative value, Q/5d, remains well
below 1.0 at 0.29. Equistar Chemical reported facility wide
SO2 emissions in 2002 at one tpy, with NOX
emissions of 728 tpy. As shown in Table 5, the nearest Class I area
receptor is located at Mingo, at a distance of approximately 531 km.
The transport distance in combination with low actual emissions
produced the low Q/d value for Equistar Chemical. Under these
circumstances, Equistar Chemical is unlikely to be subject to BART.
However, the State considered results from additional analyses,
described below, before making any BART exemptions based solely on Q/d
calculations.
The BART guidelines indicate that when determining if a source is
BART-subject, CALPUFF, or other appropriate models, can be used to
determine if an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute
to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.\13\ The State explains in
Appendix 9 to the SIP, and in its Variegated Protocol, that because
each BART-eligible unit located within the State was an average of 516
km (with a minimum of 392 km) away from the nearest Class I area, it
experienced difficulties using the CALPUFF model to determine if a unit
was BART-subject, due to the tendency of CALPUFF to over-predict single
source contributions. The State did use CALPUFF as the modeling tool
for its model plant approach described below, in the TSD for this
rulemaking, and in section 5.2 of Appendix 9 to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species non-steady-state
puff dispersion model that simulates the effects of time- and space-
varying meteorological conditions on pollution transport,
transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be applied on scales of tens
to hundreds of kilometers. It includes algorithms for subgrid scale
effects (such as terrain impingement), as well as longer range
effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet scavenging and dry
deposition, chemical transformation, and visibility effects of
particulate matter concentrations). https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the model plant analysis, the State utilized combined
(SO2 and NOX) emission rates of 5,000 tpy and
3,000 tpy per source because of the distance from the sources to the
Class I areas. The State chose to use the following Class I areas based
on their distance from Iowa sources: BADL, BOWA, VOYA, MING, HEGL, ISLE
and SENE. Natural background concentrations were extracted from the
EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions under the
Regional Haze Program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11985]]
During the State's analyses, each model plant simulation required
fourteen iterations: Two natural background scenarios across seven
Class I areas. Results for each Class I area assessment were tabulated
and ranked individually. Both maximum and 98th percentile values were
considered when determining the levels at which emissions may cause (dv
impacts greater than or equal to 1.0) or contribute (dv impacts greater
than or equal to 0.5) to visibility impairment.
The results of the analysis (given on page 28 and 29 of Appendix 9
to the SIP) showed that the model plant, with 5,000 tpy of
NOX and SO2 combined (and 50 tpy of
PM2.5) did not yield any dv impacts greater than 0.5 dv at
the 98th percentile as compared against annually averaged natural
background conditions. In the years 2002 and 2003, a maximum of five
days exceed the 0.5 dv impact threshold, occurring at the BADL, likely
due to utilization of the cleaner Western natural background
conditions.\15\ During 2004, six days exceed the 0.5 dv impact
threshold. The remaining six Class I area evaluations yield counts less
than or equal to five days with impacts greater than 0.5 dv.
Considering individual daily maximum impacts, 2002 values remain near
the 0.5 dv level; slightly higher maximum impacts occur in 2003. In
2004 maximum impacts were consistently above 1.0 dv. When compared
against the 20 percent best natural background conditions, each year,
for each site, had more than seven days with maximum impacts exceeding
0.5 dv. As expected, maximum individual daily impacts show a
corresponding increase versus annually averaged natural background
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Annual average natural background concentrations are not
strictly Class I area specific. Alternatively, sites are assigned
one of two datasets: Eastern or Western. Of the seven Class I areas
examined within the Iowa domain, all are considered Eastern sites
with the exception of the Badlands. Page 23 of Appendix 9 to the
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the model plant analysis with 3,000 tpy of
NOX and SO2 combined (and 50 tpy of
PM2.5) showed that the 98th percentile is never exceeded,
regardless of the natural background scenario. Additionally, at 3,000
tpy of NOX and SO2 emissions combined, maximum
impacts for the years 2002 and 2003, as compared against annually
averaged natural background conditions, do not exceed 0.5 dv. The year
2004 does produce impacts above 0.5 dv. Two days above 0.5 dv are
modeled for the BADL, and one day above 0.5 dv are shown for the
remaining Class I areas. The 20 percent best natural background
conditions--maximum daily impacts remain below 0.5 dv for all but SENE
in 2002. In 2003, impacts greater than 0.5 dv are found for each site,
but occur on no more than two days. Again, emissions in 2004 result in
the dv highest impacts, but the impacts do not exceed the 98th
percentile.
Based upon these results, the State concluded that any BART-
eligible source that emitted less than 3,000 tpy of combined
NOX, SO2 and PM2.5 would likely be
exempt from being BART-subject. At the 3,000 tpy level, evaluation
against the stringent 20 percent best natural background conditions
yields no more than five days with impacts exceeding 0.5 dv. Utilizing
the emissions data (provided in table 5), the State determined that
eleven of the fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources would remain well
below the 3,000 tpy combined potential to emit. These happen to be the
same facilities already identified in table 6 as being below the Q/d
screening thresholds.
As a final tool to help in the BART-subject screening process, the
State utilized the CAMx regional modeling system to model cumulative
impacts across all BART-eligible sources at Class I areas. As set forth
in the BART guidelines, a State may consider exempting all its BART-
eligible sources from BART by conducting analyses that show that all of
the emissions from BART-eligible sources in the State, taken together,
are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute visibility
impairment. To make such a showing, a State could use CALPUFF or
another appropriate dispersion model to evaluate the impacts of
individual sources on downwind Class I areas, aggregating those impacts
to determine the collective contribution from all-BART eligible sources
in the State. A State with a sufficiently large number of BART-eligible
sources could also make such a showing using a photochemical grid
model.\16\ EPA determined that the option of allowing a State to
demonstrate that the full group of BART-eligible sources in the State
does not contribute to visibility impairment would, by default, satisfy
an individual source contribution assessment. As previously discussed,
the State had concerns with the use of CALPUFF, so it elected to use
the photochemical model CAMx to model cumulative impacts of all BART-
eligible sources across Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For regional haze applications, regional scale modeling
typically involves use of a photochemical grid model that is capable
of simulating aerosol chemistry, transport, and deposition of
airborne pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone.
Regional scale air quality models are generally applied for
geographic scales ranging from a multistate to the continental
scale. Because of the design and intended applications of grid
models, they may not be appropriate for BART assessments, so States
should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office prior to
carrying out any such modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the Q/d analysis, the State utilized a 0.5 dv impact as
screening a threshold of the CAMx modeling results. For all cumulative
CAMx modeling scenarios, the scenario design involved zeroing the
actual point source emissions of BART-eligible sources on a facility-
wide basis. In zeroing BART-eligible facility emissions, emphasis was
placed upon the elevated point source emissions. The BART-eligible
source list included distinctions for CAIR versus non-CAIR units (in
lieu of CAIR as BART). This analysis is described in detail in the TSD
for this rulemaking and in appendix 9 of the SIP.
In summary, considering a 12 km grid, emissions from non-EGU BART-
eligible sources and natural background conditions, the maximum impact
modeled is 0.63 dv (BOWA) with a maximum of only two days above the 0.5
dv threshold (ISLE). Under the 20 percent best natural background
conditions, the maximum impact increases to 0.93 dv (BOWA), and the
maximum frequency of impacts greater than 0.5 dv is five days (ISLE).
Because there were impacts greater than the 0.5 dv threshold, the State
could not provide a blanket exemption for all non-EGU BART-eligible
sources considering just the results of the CAMx modeling. The State
did not consider these analyses to be definitive so it considered
actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from the sources
evaluated in the modeling. Because eleven of the non-EGU BART-eligible
sources (the same eleven as previously identified in table 6) comprise
approximately 11 percent (2,547 tpy of SO2, NOX
and PM) of the total of actual emissions (22,911 tpy of SO2,
NOX and PM) from all fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible sources,
the State determined that these eleven sources were unlikely to play a
significant role in the cumulative modeled visibility impacts.
Although Iowa did not strictly follow the guidelines for exempting
a source, specifically with respect to modeling a BART-eligible source
using maximum actual emissions, in this case EPA has determined that
Iowa's alternative analysis should result in an acceptable conclusion
to exempt these eleven sources for the following reasons. First, the
State's analysis used both actual emissions on a facility-wide basis
and potential emissions for the BART-eligible units. When looking at
the
[[Page 11986]]
actual emissions facility-wide, for many of the sources, it was clear
that had the maximum actual emissions been modeled using CALPUFF, the
results would indicate minimal visibility impacts. This was apparent
when comparing the modeled plant analysis emission inputs with the
actual emissions. In almost all cases the sum of the actual emissions
of visibility impairing emissions were significantly less than those
used in the model plant analysis. The same is also true when looking at
the potential emissions for many of these sources. Given that most of
these non-EGU units do not have continuous emission monitoring systems
(CEMS) that can be used for an accurate calculation of actual maximum
24-hour emission rate, using both the actual annual emissions facility-
wide and potential emissions for the BART-eligible units provides
confidence that these sources can be excluded as BART sources. Second,
the Q/d analysis Iowa used provided a good indication of those sources
where additional analysis might be warranted. Although we have not
specifically relied on the Q/d analysis for our approval of BART
exemptions, we do believe it was informative and the use of Q/5d is
fairly conservative for this type of an analysis. We believe that the
State reasonably demonstrated that the eleven non-EGU BART-eligible
sources (listed above in table 6) are not BART-subject. The remaining
discussion of this section will focus on the three remaining non-EGU
BART-eligible facilities that were not exempted: Equistar Chemical,
Holcim, and ADM-Clinton.
Equistar Chemical's potential and actual emissions are dominated by
VOCs, and not SO2, NOX or PM. While potential
emissions of SO2 and NOX exceed the 5,000 tpy
model plant threshold, the actual emissions are far below the 3,000 tpy
threshold--729 tons per year of NOX and SO2
combined. As such, the State determined that Equistar Chemical would
not contribute impacts exceeding 0.5 dv, and was therefore not BART-
subject. EPA agrees with this determination.
Both Holcim and ADM-Clinton fail the Q/d and CALPUFF model plant
analyses. Almost all Q/d metrics exceed the 1.0 significance level,
while SO2 and NOX emissions (potentials and
actual emissions) exceed both the 3,000 and 5,000 tpy scenarios
examined with the CALPUFF model plant application. The State decided to
look at both ADM-Clinton and Holcim on a case-by-case basis.
As mentioned previously, the State found the uncertainties of using
the CALPUFF modeling system for determining single source visibility
impacts from sources far removed from Class I areas very challenging.
The State decided to use an alternative process, scaling the cumulative
modeling impacts according to emission rates. The State utilized the
maximum dv impacts from the most relevant CAMx modeling scenario, at
the most stringent 20 percent best natural background conditions, a
value of 0.93 dv to scale actual SO2, NOX and PM
emissions for both sources. The State zeroed out the actual
SO2, NOX and PM emissions in the following
scenario. Because Holcim's SO2, NOX and PM
emissions account for 6,828 tpy of the 22,911 tpy total non-EGU BART-
eligible sources' SO2, NOX and PM emissions,
Holcim's proportional share would account for 30 percent of the
emissions. If ADM-Clinton's SO2, NOX and PM
emissions account for 12,755 tpy of the 22,911 tpy total non-EGU BART-
eligible sources' SO2, NOX and PM emissions, ADM-
Clinton would account for 56 percent of the emissions. The State then
scaled the visibility impact attributable to Holcim and ADM-Clinton. If
the maximum visibility impact from all non-EGU BART-eligible sources
was figured to be 0.93 dv, and Holcim was found to contribute
approximately 30 percent to that impairment, it could be estimated that
Holcim would contribute approximately 0.28 dv visibility impairment
(below the 0.5 dv threshold). Using the same method, ADM-Clinton was
found to contribute approximately 56 percent to the maximum visibility
impairment, or approximately 0.52 dv, above the 0.5 dv threshold. The
State found that this additional information supported a determination
that Holcim did not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any
Class I area, and was not BART-subject, however, the same determination
for ADM Clinton could not be made according to this analysis.
As described previously, from the three screening approaches the
State used, ADM-Clinton could not be ruled out from contributing to
visibility impairment at Class I areas. However, at the time the State
drafted the SIP, ADM-Clinton was going through a PSD permitting
activity to construct new boilers. In the permit for the new boilers
(Permit 05-A-314), ADM-Clinton was required to shut down boilers 1-14
no later than 180 days after the startup of the new boilers.\17\ This
includes the two BART-eligible boilers, numbers 7 and 8. We have
confirmed with the State that these boilers have indeed shut down. In
the PSD permit for the new boilers that replaced boilers 7 and 8, the
facility was required to install and operate a baghouse, selective non-
catalytic reduction, and limestone injection flue gas desulfurization
on the new boiler units (three coal burning and two natural gas; five
in total). The construction permit limited the emissions of the
replacement boiler units through an annual cap applicable across all
five new units. SO2 emissions are not to exceed 3,629 tpy
and NOX emissions are not to exceed 1,445 tpy. These limits
represent best available control technology (BACT) emission rates as
required under the PSD program.\18\ Because the BART-eligible boilers
were permanently shut down pursuant to an enforceable PSD permit, and
the replacement boilers satisfy BACT, the State concluded that ADM-
Clinton was not subject to BART. EPA agrees with this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://aqbweb.iowadnr.gov/data/23/2301006/05A314P.pdf.
\18\ The applicable State permit numbers are 05-A-313-P, 05-A-
314-P, 05-A-315-P for the coal-fired boilers, and 05-A-316-P, 05-A-
317-P for the natural gas fired boilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes the State's approach to the photochemical modeling
analysis does not fully account for the non-linear aspects of
photochemical modeling and does not fully acknowledge that modeled
impacts will not necessarily be directly proportional to the modeled
emissions. However, EPA believes it is unlikely that Holcim will have
visibility impacts on a Class I area greater than 0.5 dv for the
following reasons. First, all modeled sources, including Holcim, are
located a significant distance from any Class I area, with Holcim being
527 km from the nearest Class I area. Second, the modeling inputs
showed that emissions from Holcim constituted only 30 percent of total
emissions from the modeled sources. Third, the maximum modeled impacts
from this group of sources at any Class I area using average natural
background conditions is 0.64 dv with at most 2 days of impacts over
0.5 dv. Fourth, looking at all the maximum modeled impacts at all seven
Class I areas shows an average maximum impact of 0.44 dv, indicating
that no single source is likely the cause for the majority of impacts
at any single Class I area. Finally, ADM-Clinton represents 56 percent
of the visibility impairing emissions of the modeled sources and this
source's BART eligible units have been permanently shut down, thus EPA
anticipates impacts from the remaining group of sources would have less
than a 0.5 dv impact. Based on these factors, EPA believes that State
adequately demonstrated that Holcim does not cause or contribute to
[[Page 11987]]
visibility impairment in any Class I areas, and therefore is not
subject to BART.
2. EGU BART Evaluation for PM
As the State relied on CAIR to address NOX and
SO2 emissions, only an evaluation for PM was conducted for
BART-eligible EGUs. There is no PM presumptive emission rate for EGUs
with a capacity of 750 MW or greater. The State again relied on its
CALPUFF model plant analysis for analyzing EGU PM emissions. Model year
2004 was selected in order to generate maximum impacts (the State's
analysis showed that 2004 data generated impacts that exceeded 2002 and
2003 data). Two scenarios were completed using emission rates of 10,000
and 5,000 tpy of PM, NOX, or SO2 emissions. The
model plant configuration was modified to reflect idealized EGU stack
parameters, obtained from the EPA's CALPUFF analysis in support of the
June 2005 changes to the RHR. Graphical results are given on page 46 of
Appendix 9 to the SIP.
No impacts above 0.5 dv were observed at any Class I area under
annually averaged natural background conditions with PM emissions of
10,000 tpy. Under the 20 percent best natural background conditions no
impacts exceeding the 98th percentile occur. Reducing the emissions to
5,000 tpy, no impacts above 0.5 dv were produced under annually
averaged background conditions or 20 percent best natural background
conditions. In terms of scale, Iowa's largest PM10 source
(an EGU that is not BART-eligible) emits 3,174 tpy (based on a
facility-wide value), approximately 36.5 percent below the emission
rate which yielded no visibility impacts. Based upon these results the
State concluded, and the EPA agrees, that PM emissions from BART-
eligible EGUs in the State of Iowa would not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any nearby Class I area, and are therefore not
subject to BART for PM.
G. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
EPA's visibility regulations direct States to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as
explained in section III. F. of this action. Under EPA's RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a State SIP must address any integral
vistas identified by 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 Federal area includes any integral
vista associated with that area. Iowa has no Class I areas, and FLMs
did not identify any integral vistas affected by Iowa sources.
Therefore, the Iowa regional haze SIP submittal is not required to
address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional
haze SIP with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions.
H. Monitoring Strategy
Because it does not host a Class I area, Iowa is not required to
develop a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and
reporting regional haze impairment that is representative of Class I
areas within the State. However, Iowa is required to establish
procedures by which monitoring data and other information is used to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to
regional haze impairment at Class I areas outside of the State.
There are two IMPROVE monitoring protocol sites (sites that are not
managed directly by IMPROVE, but by the operating agency) which are
operated in the State. One is located at Lake Viking State Park in
southwestern Iowa, and the second is located at Lake Sugema Wildlife
Management Area in southeastern Iowa. The monitors began operation in
June 2002. Descriptions of these monitoring sites and methods for data
validation can be found in Chapter 6 of the State's Regional Haze SIP.
The State has provided a commitment in Chapter 6 of the SIP to maintain
the IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites contingent upon continued
national funding.
Data from IMPROVE protocol monitors is analyzed by a national
laboratory (funded via an interagency agreement between the EPA and the
National Park Service) and uploaded by the laboratory into two publicly
available databases at https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve and
https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/. Any supplemental monitoring
data from additional monitoring equipment at each site is publicly
available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs.
EPA believes the State's commitments to utilize data from these
sites, or any other EPA-approved monitoring network location, to
characterize and model conditions within the State and to compare
visibility conditions in the State to visibility impairment at Class I
areas hosted by other States. EPA proposes that Iowa has satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
I. Emissions Inventory
Iowa was required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include
baseline year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data
is available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State
provided an inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5,
PM10, and ammonia (NH3). As required, the
inventory includes emissions for a baseline year (2002), the most
recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future year
(2018) projected emissions along with a commitment to update the
inventory periodically.
The 2002 point source inventory was derived from the 2002 National
Emission Inventory (NEI).\19\ All other source category emission
inventories were developed by CENRAP and its contractors as part of the
development of a baseline inventory for the 2002 modeling
inventory.\20\ A summary of the 2002 baseline emissions inventory can
be found in Chapter 7 of the SIP. Methodologies for the development of
the 2002 emissions inventories can be found in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html.
\20\ https://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the 2018 future year emissions the State grew the 2002
emissions using the Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) 5, MOBILE 6
and NONROAD vehicle emissions software. The State also used the IPM to
forecast EGU emissions.
As shown in table 7, the State made a modification to the estimated
2018 SO2 emissions for the point source EGU source category.
In tables 7 and 8, the 2002 and 2018 point source EGU SO2
emissions are 135,833 and 160,733 tons per year (tpy), respectively.
The State was concerned with the accuracy of the 2018 (160,733 tpy)
value. CENRAP utilized the ``RPO version 2.1.9'' IPM (referred to as
IPM v2.1.9) predictions to generate the 2018 BaseG scenario,\21\ in
which total Iowa EGU SO2 emissions were forecast to be
approximately 147,305 tpy. During review of the
[[Page 11988]]
CENRAP BaseE2 modeling, errors were identified in the 2018 Iowa EGU
emissions. Among the errors, certain EGU emissions were overestimated
when a growth methodology was applied twice, once with EGAS and then
again within IPM. Following error identification, corrections were
submitted for inclusion in the BaseF (and subsequent BaseG) modeling
scenarios. After the corrections, 2018 EGU SO2 emissions
totaled 151,354 tpy. Thus, the State believed the value of 160,733 tpy
provided through the emissions inventory report developed by a CENRAP
contractor to be inaccurate.\22\ The State found that the corrected EGU
SO2 emissions estimate of 151,354 tpy for 2018 is
conservative, given updated results from IPM version 3.0 (discussed in
Chapter 11 of the SIP) and Iowa's participation in CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The CENRAP modeling emissions inventory consists of several
distinct datasets: the 2002 basecase for model performance
evaluation, 2002 typical, 2018 basecase, and the 2018 control
strategy scenario. The inventory was refined through several rounds
of CENRAP workgroup review and revision, beginning with the initial
BaseA version and culminating in the BaseG inventory.
\22\ The ``Consolidation of Emissions Inventories''--Pechan
Report No. 05.03.002/9500.003.
Table 7--2002 Iowa Emissions Summary
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia................................................. 0 0 0 0 258,915 0
Area.................................................... 106,712 6,782 11,540 12,182 6.560 3,184
Area Fire............................................... 1,120 138 4,681 4,893 0 160
Fugitive Dust........................................... 0 0 38,666 193,331 0 0
Off road................................................ 63,694 92,595 8,904 9,707 79 9,037
On road................................................. 87,392 120,621 1,747 2,373 3,064 3,200
Point EGU............................................... 1,075 81,761 4,527 9,424 0 135,833
Point Fire.............................................. 545 33 594 700 48 35
Point NonEGU............................................ 41,184 35,812 7,651 17495 3,317 51,836
Road dust............................................... 0 0 19,525 127,882 0 0
Wildfire................................................ 5 29 218 224 0 8
Biogenic................................................ 408,291 25,732 .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 710,018 363,503 98,053 378,211 271,983 203,293
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--2018 Iowa Projected Emissions Summary
[Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonia................................................. 0 0 0 0 302,012 0
Area.................................................... 127,849 7,476 10,677 11,510 13,304 3,224
Area Fire............................................... 1,120 138 4,681 4,893 0 160
Fugitive Dust........................................... 0 0 40,608 203,044 0 0
Off road................................................ 37,143 60,210 5,582 6,088 101 220
On road................................................. 36,404 33,975 708 708 4,225 400
Point EGU............................................... 1,802 65,629 9,578 11,232 713 151,354
Point Fire.............................................. 547 33 596 702 49 36
Point NonEGU............................................ 56,714 40,964 10,151 21,737 5,763 42,862
Road dust............................................... 0 0 17,712 114,889 0 0
Wildfire................................................ 5 29 218 224 0 8
Biogenic................................................ 408,291 25,732 .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 669,875 234,186 100,511 375,027 326,167 198,264
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes that the 2002 and 2018 statewide emissions inventories
and the State's method for developing the 2018 emissions inventory
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the regional haze
rule.
J. Reporting Requirements
EPA has reviewed and believes the State's reporting strategy meets
the requirements of the regional haze rule. The State is required to
maintain reporting, record keeping and other measures necessary to
assess and report on visibility improvements. In communications with
the EPA, Iowa asserts that by complying with the Air Emissions
Reporting Rule, in addition to the State's commitment (page 56, Chapter
12 of the SIP) to complete the periodic review as required in 40 CFR
51.308(g), for which the most recent or most appropriate emissions data
will be used, such as CEMS data, it has met the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(v) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR. The EPA
believes the State's methods of reporting and record keeping of
emissions meet the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR.
K. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
The State of Iowa met the FLM consultation requirement by sending
the draft SIP to the FLMs on November 26, 2007, and notifying the FLMs
of the public hearing on January 30, 2008. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires
States to provide a description of how they addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Iowa has provided this in Appendix 2.1 of the
SIP. EPA believes that Iowa adequately responded to the comments
received from the FLMs and from EPA.
[[Page 11989]]
Regional haze SIPs must also provide procedures for continuing
consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR
51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and 5-year
progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having
the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I
areas. The State of Iowa has committed to continuing to coordinate and
consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports
and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs
having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in Class I
areas.
EPA proposes to find that the State of Iowa has satisfied the
consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress Reports
Iowa acknowledged the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to submit
periodic progress reports and regional haze SIP revisions, with the
first report due by July 31, 2018, and revisions due every ten years
thereafter. Iowa has committed to meeting this requirement.
Iowa also acknowledged the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to
submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years
following this initial SIP submittal. Iowa committed to submitting the
required five year SIP revision, evaluating the progress made towards
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area which may be affected by
emissions from Iowa sources. Iowa committed to addressing all the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 (g), including a review of the changes in
the emission inventory, a review of the periodic reporting
requirements, and a determination of whether additional action is
needed according to 40 CFR 51.308(h).
We propose to find that Iowa has satisfied the requirements to
submit periodic SIP revisions and progress reports as required by 40
CFR 51.308(f)-(h).
V. Proposed Actions
We propose a limited approval of Iowa's March 25, 2008 SIP revision
addressing regional haze. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a
limited disapproval of the Iowa 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. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing to take action in
today's rulemaking on issues associated with Iowa's reliance on CAIR in
its regional haze SIP.
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'' by the 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, 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 flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The CAA
forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 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, the 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, the 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 the 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 the approval action proposed 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 the 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
[[Page 11990]]
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 the 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 the 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
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, the 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
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.
Karl Brooks,
Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2012-4684 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
