Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report, 11711-11723 [2019-05860]
Download as PDF
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).In
addition, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 2019.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019–05861 Filed 3–27–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0619; FRL–9990–53–
Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Regional
Haze Five-Year Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing to approve a revision to a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Governor through the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ) on September 28, 2016.
The SIP revision addresses requirements
of federal regulations that direct the
State to submit a periodic report
describing progress toward reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the existing
implementation plan.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 29, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2016–0619, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
steib.clovis@epa.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit any information electronically
that is considered Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or any other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include all
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11711
other file sharing systems). For
additional submission methods, please
contact Bill Deese, 214–665–7253,
deese.william@epa.gov. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clovis Steib, (214) 665–7566,
steib.clovis@epa.gov. To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment with Mr. Bill Deese at 214–
665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ each mean the
EPA.
I. Background
A. Oklahoma’s Regional Haze SIP
In section 169A of the 1977 CAA
Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the
nation’s national parks and wilderness
areas. This section of the CAA
establishes as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I
Federal areas where impairment results
from manmade air pollution.1 Congress
added section 169B to the CAA in 1990
that added visibility protection
provisions, and the EPA promulgated
final regulations addressing regional
haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze
Rule, which was most recently updated
1 Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior,
promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility was
identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. Although
states and tribes may designate additional areas as
Class I, the requirements of the visibility program
set forth in the CAA applies only to ‘‘mandatory
Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I
Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land
Manager.’’ When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in
this action, it means ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
areas.’’ [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and
CAA Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11712
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
in 2017.2 The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing 1980 visibility
regulations and established a more
comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in the EPA’s broader visibility
protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300
through 309. The regional haze
regulations require states to demonstrate
reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal of a return to natural
visibility conditions for mandatory
Class I Federal areas both within and
outside states by 2064. The requirement
to submit a regional haze SIP revision at
periodic intervals applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the
Virgin Islands. Oklahoma submitted its
initial regional haze SIP on February 18,
2010.
Oklahoma’s 2010 Regional Haze SIP
included calculations of baseline and
natural visibility conditions for the
Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area
(‘‘Wichita Mountains’’ or WMWA),3 the
only Class I area located in Oklahoma
(and potentially affected Class I areas
located elsewhere), a long-term strategy
to address regional haze visibility
impairment, RPGs for the WMWA
reflective of the visibility conditions
projected to be achieved by the end of
the first implementation period, and a
monitoring and reporting strategy. The
2010 Regional Haze SIP also included
determinations of emission limitations
and schedules for compliance for a
group of Oklahoma industrial air
emissions sources that are subject to
best available retrofit technology
(BART) 4 under national Regional Haze
Program requirements. Oklahoma’s
Regional Haze SIP purports that
visibility improvement at the WMWA is
2 See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final
action (64 FR 35714), as amended on July 6, 2005
(70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60631), June
7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017 (84
FR 3079).
3 WMWA is contained within the Wichita
Mountains National Wildlife Refuge and is
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Refuge is located in Comanche County adjacent to
Fort Sill Military Reservation, a U.S. Army training
base. The city of Lawton is the closest population
center and is located 22 miles southeast of the
Refuge.
4 Section 169A of the CAA directs states to
evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger,
often under-controlled, 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 toward the natural visibility
goal by controlling emissions of pollutants that
contribute to visibility impairment, including a
requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available
Retrofit Technology’’ (BART).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
limited by the impact of out-of-state
emission sources.
The 2010 Regional Haze SIP evaluated
numerous sources for applicability of
BART. Oklahoma relied on BART
requirements for emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
from certain electric generating units
(EGUs) in the State in its regional haze
plan to meet certain requirements of
EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. This reliance
was consistent with EPA’s regulations at
the time that Oklahoma developed its
regional haze plan. EPA approved core
elements of Oklahoma’s Regional Haze
SIP, including BART determinations for
the majority of emissions units that
were subject to BART. Those
determinations became effective on
January 27, 2012 (76 FR 81728,
December 28, 2011). However, EPA
disapproved ODEQ’s BART
determinations for SO2 emissions from
six-coal-fired EGUs located at three
facilities. As a result, EPA issued a
federal implementation plan (FIP),
promulgating revised SO2 BART
emission limits on coal-fired EGUs at
those three facilities.5 The FIP affects
two units at each of two facilities owned
and operated by Oklahoma Gas and
Electric Company (OG&E): Muskogee
Generating Station in Muskogee County,
and Sooner Generating Station in Noble
County. The FIP also initially applied to
two units at American Electric Power/
Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s
(AEP/PSO’s) Northeastern Power
Station in Rogers County, but those
requirements have since been removed
from the FIP after EPA approval of a SIP
revision addressing these units.
In the December 2011 action, EPA
also disapproved the State’s LTS for
regional haze because the LTS relied on
the BART limits in the disapproved
determinations. EPA also disapproved
portions of Oklahoma’s Interstate
Transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour
Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(submitted to address the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it
applies to visibility, also known as
‘‘prong 4’’). Specifically, this
disapproval found that the SIP submittal
had not prevented SO2 emissions from
the above-mentioned units from
interfering with measures required to be
included in the applicable
implementation plans of other states to
protect visibility. Subsequently, EPA
promulgated the aforementioned FIP, to
address these deficiencies.6 EPA took no
5 See 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011), codified
at 40 CFR 52.1923.
6 The final rule noted in 40 CFR 52.1928(c) that
the FIP satisfied these deficiencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
action on Oklahoma’s RPGs for WMWA,
pending its evaluation of impacts of outof-state emission sources.
On March 7, 2014, EPA published a
document 7 in the Federal Register
approving Oklahoma’s 2013 SIP
revision 8 submitted to address certain
disapproved portions of the Regional
Haze SIP related to the BART
determination for two coal-fired units
located at American Electric Power/
Public Service Company of Oklahoma’s
(AEP/PSO’s) Northeastern Power
Station in Rogers County, Oklahoma. A
separate document, published
simultaneously,9 withdrew the EPAissued FIP as it relates to the
Northeastern Power Station facility. The
approved revision also satisfied the
previously disapproved portions of
Oklahoma’s Interstate Transport SIP and
the Regional Haze SIP’s LTS, as those
portions relate to the subject facility.
The FIP still applies (unaltered) to the
four affected units at the Muskogee and
Sooner Generating Stations.
On December 16, 2014, EPA
published a proposed action on the final
portion of Oklahoma’s 2010 Regional
Haze SIP and on regional haze
obligations for Texas.10 As mentioned
previously, Oklahoma’s 2010 SIP
concluded that visibility progress at the
WMWA would be limited by the impact
of out-of-state emission sources; and
documented that a significant portion of
the visibility impairment at the WMWA
results from emissions generated in
Texas.
Given the magnitude of these
interstate impacts, EPA determined that
the Oklahoma and Texas regional haze
SIPs were interconnected, especially
considering the relationship between
upwind and downwind states in the
reasonable progress and long-term
strategy provisions of the Regional Haze
Rule. On January 5, 2016, EPA issued a
final action 11 for Texas and Oklahoma
which:
• Disapproved portions of Texas’s
implementation plan for regional haze
related to the effects of its emissions at
the WMWA and other Class I areas;
• Disapproved a portion of
Oklahoma’s regional haze SIP revision,
the reasonable progress goals at the
7 See
79 FR 12944.
Proposed Regional Haze
Implementation Plan Revision submitted on March
20, 2013; available in Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–
2013–0227.
9 See 79 FR 12954.
10 See 79 FR 74818.
11 See 81 FR 295 (January 5, 2016), codified at 40
CFR 52.2302.
8 Oklahoma’s
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
WMWA, and its reasonable progress
consultation with Texas; 12
• Simultaneously promulgated a FIP
for Texas, which required additional
reductions from eight coal-fired electric
power plants; and
• Calculated new (numerical)
reasonable progress goals at the
WMWA.
EPA’s actions did not impose any
additional requirements on emission
sources within Oklahoma.
That rulemaking was challenged,
however, and then stayed in its entirety
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit pending resolution of the
litigation; in March 2017, following the
submittal of a request by the EPA for a
voluntary remand of the parts of the rule
under challenge, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals remanded the rule in its
entirety.13
EPA has not taken new action with
respect to the RPGs for WMWA in
Oklahoma. Ultimately, as discussed
elsewhere in this action, whether it is
the State’s RPGs established in the 2010
RH SIP or the EPA’s revised RPGs in the
January 2016 action that are evaluated,
our review of the State’s 2016 progress
report indicates that Oklahoma’s
emission reductions and measured
visibility conditions are on track to meet
those goals.
As we state in the Regional Haze Rule,
the RPGs set by the state are not
enforceable.14 The RPGs represent the
State’s best estimate of the degree of
12 See 81 FR 313: ‘‘The Regional Haze Rule
required that Oklahoma use the consultation
process under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) in the
development of reasonable progress goals in tandem
with Texas. Nevertheless, throughout the
consultations, Oklahoma failed to explicitly request
that Texas further investigate whether reasonable
controls were available or that Texas reduce
emissions from these significantly impacting
sources to ensure that all reasonable measures to
improve visibility were included in Texas’ longterm strategy and incorporated into Oklahoma’s
reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains. This failure resulted in the
development of improper reasonable progress goals
for the Wichita Mountains.’’
13 Texas, et al v. EPA, et al, No. 16–60118 (March
22, 2017).
14 See 64 FR 35733: ‘‘. . . the reasonable progress
goal is a goal and not a mandatory standard which
must be achieved by a particular date as is the case
with the NAAQS. Once a State has adopted a
reasonable progress goal and determined what
progress will be made toward that goal over a 10year period, the goal itself is not enforceable. All
that is ‘enforceable’ is the set of control measures
which the State has adopted to meet that goal. If
the State’s strategies have been implemented but
the State has not met its reasonable progress goal,
the State could either: (1) revise its strategies in the
SIP for the next long-term strategy period to meet
its goal, or (2) revise the reasonable progress goals
for the next implementation period. In either case,
the State would be required to base its decisions on
appropriate analyses of the statutory factors
included in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the
final rule.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
visibility improvement that will result
at the State’s Class I areas from changes
in emissions—changes driven by the
particular set of control measures the
state has adopted in its regional haze
SIP to address visibility, as well as all
other enforceable measures expected to
reduce emissions over the period of the
SIP. Given the forward-looking nature of
RPGs and the range of assumptions that
must be made as to emissions a decade
or more in the future, we expect there
to be some uncertainty in a given State’s
visibility projections.15
B. Oklahoma’s Regional Haze Progress
Report
Each state is required to submit a
progress report that evaluates progress
towards the RPGs for each Class I area
within the state and for each Class I area
outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. 40
CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the
progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze implementation plan.16 The
progress report for the first planning
period is due five years after submittal
of the initial regional haze SIP and must
take the form of a SIP revision.
Oklahoma submitted its initial regional
haze SIP on February 18, 2010.
On September 28, 2016, Oklahoma
submitted its progress report in the form
of a SIP revision under 40 CFR 51.308,
which, among other things, detailed the
progress made in the first planning
period toward implementation of the
long-term strategy (LTS) outlined in the
State’s regional haze plan. The progress
report also included the visibility
improvement measured at the WMWA,
the only Class I area within Oklahoma,
an assessment of whether Class I areas
outside of the State are potentially
impacted by emissions from Oklahoma,
and a determination of the adequacy of
the existing implementation plan.
11713
II. EPA’s Evaluation of Oklahoma’s
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
The progress report provides an
opportunity for public input on the
State’s (and the EPA’s) assessment of
whether the regional haze SIP is being
implemented appropriately and whether
reasonable progress is being achieved
consistent with the projected visibility
improvement in the SIP. This section
includes EPA’s analysis of Oklahoma’s
2016 progress report, and an
explanation of the basis for the Agency’s
proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
In its progress report, Oklahoma
summarizes the status of the emissions
reduction measures that were relied
upon by Oklahoma in its regional haze
plan. The major control measures
identified by the State in the progress
report are as follows:
• Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) Controls
• Oklahoma Control Measures from:
(1) Air Quality Permits
(2) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration
(3) Compliance and Enforcement
(4) Mobile Emissions
(5) Cross-State Air Pollution
Regulations
(6) Other Measures
• Additional Air Pollution Emission
Reductions
a. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) Controls
On July 6, 2005, EPA published final
amendments to its regional haze rule,
which requires emission sources that fit
specific criteria to install BART
controls.17 The 2010 regional haze SIP
originally determined that there were
twenty facilities 18 in Oklahoma with
BART-eligible sources.19 Oklahoma
determined six facilities with a
combined total of thirteen (now
twelve 20) units, were subject-to-BART 21
17 See
70 FR 39103 through 39172 (July 6, 2005).
Table VI–1 of the 2010 regional haze SIP
(page 71).
19 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of
visibility-impairing pollutants, were put in place
between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and
whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
20 AEP/PSO’s Northeastern Power Station closed
EGU#4 effective April 2016.
21 Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are
directed to conduct BART determinations for
‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in
a Class I area. Sources that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility
18 See
15 See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v).
Regional Haze Rule requires states to
provide in the progress report an assessment of
whether the current ‘‘implementation plan’’ is
sufficient to enable the states to meet all established
RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term
‘‘implementation plan’’ is defined for purposes of
the Regional Haze Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or
Tribal Implementation Plan. As such, the Agency
may consider measures in any issued FIP as well
as those in a state’s regional haze plan in assessing
the adequacy of the ‘‘existing implementation plan’’
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
16 The
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
Continued
28MRP1
11714
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
in the 2010 regional haze SIP.22 EPA
approved Oklahoma’s identification of
BART-eligible sources and
determination of subject-to-BART
sources in our 2011 final action.23
Section 2.4 of the progress report
provides a discussion of BART
requirements and implementation
status. The current BART
determinations for all subject-to-BART
units in Oklahoma following the
various, aforementioned series of SIP
revisions and FIPs along with their
implementation status, are listed in
Table 1 below.
TABLE 1—CURRENT BART DETERMINATIONS
BART emission limits (in lb/MMBtu) a
Facility
Unit
BART conditions
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2
NOX
PM10
OG&E Muskogee Generating Station.
Unit 4—coalfired.
Unit 5—coalfired
0.06 b ............................
0.15
0.10 ..............................
Meet low NOX emission limits
by 1/27/17 via installation of
low-NOX burners (LNB)
with over-fire air (OFA).
Completed installation of
LNB for Unit 4 in June
2015; Unit 5 in December
2013.
Meet lower PM emissions
based on existing controls
which included electro-static precipitators (ESP).c
Units 4 and 5 are now
planned to be converted
over to natural gas in the
Fall of 2018.d
OG&E Seminole Generating Station e.
Unit 1—natural
gas-fired.
Unit 2—natural
gas-fired
Unit 3—natural
gas-fired
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, no additional
control required for
BART.
0.203
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, no additional
control required for
BART.
Meet low NOX emission limits
by 1/27/17 via installation of
LNB with OFA and flue gas
recirculation (FGR).
Installation was completed on
2 of the 3 units at the time
of the progress report SIP
submission (approximately
May 2016 for Unit 1 and
December 2015 for Unit 2)
and the 3rd was completed
in May 2017.f
OG&E Sooner Generating Station.
Unit 1—coalfired.
Unit 2—coalfired
0.06 b ............................
0.15
0.10 ..............................
Meet low NOX emission limits
by 1/27/17 via installation of
LNB with OFA Completed
installation of the LNB for
Unit 1 in March 2014; Unit
2 in April 2013.
Meet lower PM emissions
based on existing controls
which included ESP.g
Meet lower SO2 emissions via
installation of dry gas
desulfurization to be installed by 1/4/19 per the
FIP.
Construction of scrubber currently ongoing for Unit 1.
Unit 2 is scheduled to commence in Fall 2018.h
AEP/PSO Comanche
Power Station e.
Unit 1—natural
gas-fired.
Unit 2—natural
gas-fired
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, no additional
control required for
BART.
0.15
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, no additional
control required for
BART.
Meet low NOX emission limits
by 1/27/17 via installation of
LNB. Installation completed
(April 2016).i
0.164
impairment in a Class I area are determined to be
subject-to-BART. For each source subject to BART,
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that states
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
0.212
identify the level of control representing BART after
considering the factors set out in CAA section
169A(g).
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22 See Table VI–4 of the 2010 regional haze SIP
(page 73) and Table 2.1 of the progress report.
23 See 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
11715
TABLE 1—CURRENT BART DETERMINATIONS—Continued
BART emission limits (in lb/MMBtu) a
Facility
BART conditions
Unit
SO2
AEP/PSO Northeastern
Power Station e j.
AEP/PSO Southwestern
Power Station e.
NOX
Unit 2—natural
gas-fired.
Unit 3—coalfired
Unit 4—coalfired (Retired as of
April 2016).
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, no additional
control required for
BART.
0.40
Unit 3—natural
gas-fired.
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, so no BART requirement for SO2
control systems.
PM10
0.28
0.15
0.45
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, no additional
control required for
BART.
0.10
Meet low NOX emission limits
by 1/27/17 via installation of
LNB with OFA Completed
installation in March 2014.k
Meet interim NOX and SO2
emission limits until 4/16/16
when one of the two units
would shut down (Unit 4
shut down on 4/16/16).
Remaining unit (#3) must
meet lower SO2 and NOX
emission limits via installation of LNB with OFA, and
further control system tuning.
Installation of the LNB was
completed in April 2012;
and modifications to install
SO2 controls have not yet
begun.h
Remaining unit (#3) also must
incrementally decrease capacity utilization during the
period from 2021 to 2026;
and completely shut down
by 12/31/2026.l
Natural Gas as primary
fuel, so no BART requirement for PM
control systems.
Meet low NOX emission limits
by 1/27/17 via installation of
LNB with OFA Completed
installation in May 2014.m
a The facilities are currently operating under the federally-enforceable BART-subject emission limits set forth in 76 FR 81728, December 28,
2011, unless otherwise noted.
b EPA disapproved Oklahoma’s SO BART determinations and issued a FIP covering the BART-subject units at the facility (40 CFR 52.1923
2
(2015)). Under this FIP, each unit must meet lower SO2 emission limits (0.06 lbs/MMBtu Boiler Operation Day) based on installation of emission
controls, including dry flue gas desulfurization. Due to litigation over EPA’s decision, the deadline by which these units are required to meet their
new SO2 emission limits contained in the FIP is January 4, 2019.
c See page 12 of the progress report SIP.
d See email response from ODEQ dated June 11, 2018 which has been included in docket for this proposed rulemaking: Units 4 and 5 were
converted to natural gas in February 2017.
e Natural gas units are considered ‘‘grandfathered’’ and currently do not have specific emission limits established in the current permit. The
BART NOX and PM10 emission limits for each of the affected units are based on a 30-day rolling average in accordance with the federally-enforceable BART subject emission limits.
f See page 10 of the progress report SIP; and Email response from ODEQ dated June 11, 2018 which has been included in docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
g See page 11 of the progress report SIP.
h See email response from ODEQ dated June 11, 2018 which has been included in docket for this proposed rulemaking.
i See page 10 of the progress report SIP.
j EPA disapproved Oklahoma’s SO BART determinations for Units 3 and 4 at the facility and issued a FIP covering these units. Subsequently,
2
DEQ developed and submitted, and EPA approved, a revision to the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, which replaced the FIP as it related to EPA’s
SO2 BART requirements for Units 3 and 4, as well as revised Oklahoma’s original NOX BART requirements for Units 3 and 4 (79 FR 12954,
March 3,2014).
k See page 12 of the progress report SIP.
l See page 13 of the progress report SIP.
m See pages 10–11 of the progress report SIP.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Other Oklahoma Control Measures
In its original 2010 regional haze plan,
ODEQ cited various air quality rules and
programs as part of its long-term
strategy for addressing the visibility
impairment at WMWA. These efforts
include comprehensive permitting,
compliance and enforcement programs,
an emissions inventory system, and a
state-wide ambient air monitoring
network.
The progress report states that ODEQ:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
• Operates a robust permitting
program that addresses both major and
minor source facilities. Regular
inspections are performed so as to
ensure compliance with all permit
requirements, applicable statutes, rules
and regulations. Additionally, ODEQ’s
permitting program incorporates new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) via
its permitting, compliance, and
enforcement programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Addresses visibility impairment for
new or modified major stationary
sources via its Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Requirements for
Attainment Areas permitting process.24
The PSD permitting rules limit the
establishment of air pollution sources
which may contribute to visibility
impairment and other air pollution
problems.
24 OAC
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
252:100, Subchapter 8, Part 7.
28MRP1
11716
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
• Addresses violations of its airrelated environmental rules by actively
pursuing compliance and enforcement
actions as appropriate in its ongoing
efforts to preserve air quality in the state
and surrounding areas. In doing so,
these actions also have the added effect
of reducing emissions that contribute to
visibility impairment at WMWA (and
other nearby mandatory Class I areas).
• Relies upon federal regulations on
new motor vehicles to limit air pollutant
emissions from on-road mobile sources.
These federal standards result in
emission reductions of PM, O3
precursors, and non-methane organic
compounds. The State anticipates that
based on historical trends, the slow
decline in motor-vehicle emissions are
likely to continue in the future.
• Intends to consider any future
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)related 25 reductions and their effects in
any succeeding SIP revision for regional
haze. EPA’s ongoing updates to CSAPR
to address interstate transport for the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) may lead to
additional reductions in emissions that
contribute to visibility impairment from
sources in Oklahoma, Texas, and
various other upwind states.
• Adopted efforts to address
controlled and open-burning practices
within the state:
Æ In 2013, Oklahoma adopted a
voluntary Smoke Management Plan
(SMP) 26 to address agriculture and
forestry smoke.27
Æ ODEQ also revised its open-burning
rules,28 restricting its use in certain
land-clearing operations for several
metropolitan counties.
Additionally, the State has made
various other updates and modifications
to its air quality rules and regulations,
25 CSAPR, as originally promulgated, required 28
eastern states to reduce power plant emissions that
contribute to pollution from O3 and PM2.5 in other
states. The rule requires reductions in O3 season
NOX emissions that crossed state lines for states
under the O3 requirements, and reductions in
annual SO2 and NOX emissions for states under the
PM2.5 requirements. To assure emissions
reductions, the EPA promulgated FIPs for each of
the states covered by the rule. The EPA set
pollution limits (emission budget) for each state
covered by CSAPR. Allowances are allocated to
affected sources based on these state emission
budgets.
26 See the Oklahoma Smoke Management Plan
(February 28, 2013). Recognizing the benefits of
prescribed and wildland fires to forest management,
wildlife management, and agriculture, the SMP was
developed by the Oklahoma Department of
Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (ODAFF) and
ODEQ in cooperation with federal and private
stakeholders in an effort to mitigate smoke
emissions from prescribed and wildland fires.
27 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires Oklahoma to
consider smoke management techniques for the
purposes of agricultural and forestry management.
28 See OAC 252:100–13.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
which it contends will produce indirect
benefits for visibility. These include:
• Incorporation by reference of the
latest changes and additions to the
federal NSPSs and NESHAPs,
• Updates to minor-facility and
major-source permitting requirements,
and
• Updates to OAC 252:100,
Subchapter 31, Control of Emission of
Sulfur Compounds.
Subsequently, since the
aforementioned, additional existing
control measures also address some of
the same emissions that contribute to
regional haze and visibility impairment
at Class I areas, they are anticipated to
have a positive effect on the visibility at
WMWA.
c. Additional Air Pollution Reductions
Nationally, there have been several
regulatory and economic developments
which resulted in reduced emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants since the
preparation of the initial Oklahoma SIP
revision for regional haze. In the
progress report SIP, ODEQ discusses the
anticipated benefit from efforts designed
to meet new NAAQS standards that
have been established since the 2010
Regional Haze submittal.
Acknowledging the recent trend
towards the use of cleaner fuels for
many industrial operations and
particularly for EGUs, ODEQ’s progress
report indicates that the resulting lower
emissions, particularly of SO2, would
also equate to progress towards the goal
of natural visibility conditions at
WMWA. Additionally, ODEQ cited the
potential impacts of ongoing emissions
reductions in multiple pollutants
resulting from the EPA’s 2013 mercury
and air toxics standards (a.k.a. the
‘‘MATS’’ rule), as further contributing to
visibility improvement. ODEQ did not
perform any technical analyses to
quantify the visibility benefits of these
developments in its progress report,
although it acknowledges that they
likely contributed considerably to
observed visibility improvement for the
state.
EPA proposes to find that Oklahoma
has adequately addressed the applicable
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the implementation status of
control measures because the State
adequately described the status of the
implementation of all measures
included in the implementation plan for
achieving reasonable progress goals for
mandatory Class I Federal areas both
within and outside the State.
2. Emissions Reductions
In its progress report, ODEQ presents
emissions data showing emission trends
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and reductions due to controls. The
State identified Sulfureous Particulate
(sulfate), Nitrate Particulate (nitrate),
and Organic Carbonaceous Particulate
(organic carbon (OC)) as the three largest
contributors to visibility impairment at
Oklahoma’s WMWA Class I area 29 for
the first implementation period for
regional haze. Many of the sources that
produce these visibility-impairing
pollutants in Oklahoma are
anthropogenic in nature and are
controllable. In 2002, point sources
emitted 87.5 percent of Oklahoma SO2
emissions and 31.6 percent of Oklahoma
NOX emissions.30 Emissions from
Oklahoma sources contributed to 13.25
percent of the overall visibility
impairment 31 in Oklahoma’s WMWA
Class I area. EGUs accounted for 65
percent of the total Oklahoma SO2
emissions 32 and 17 percent of the total
Oklahoma NOX emissions.33
As part of the emission data
submitted by the State, the State
reported point source emission data for
NOX and SO2 for the 2002 baseline year
and 2011 (the latest official National
Emissions Inventory (NEI)-Oklahoma
emissions inventory data available at
the time the progress report was
submitted).34 The data presented does
not reflect any emission reductions from
BART-eligible sources due to BART
limits, since the six required sources in
question had yet to install their
respective BART control measures (see
Table 1 above). Additionally, the State
provided projected emissions data for
2018. Overall point source emissions of
NOX increased slightly from 2002 to
2011, while SO2 point source emissions
decreased by approximately 30,000 tons
per year over the same period. EPA
reviewed additional, more recent EGU
emissions data and, even without
emission reductions from all BART
limits, the available EGU emissions data
through 2017 show large reductions
from the 2002 baseline.
Table 2 below, provided by the EPA
to evaluate EGU emissions post-2011,
shows that NOX and SO2 EGU point
source emissions have decreased during
the 2011 to 2017 time-period. In 2017,
the SO2 emissions were 50,270 tpy
lower than the 2011 annual levels while
29 See Table 5–1 from the progress report SIP
(September 2016) and Table V–8 of the Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan (February 2010).
30 See Table IV–1 of the Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (February 2010).
31 See Table V–7 of the Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (February 2010).
32 See Table IV–3 of the Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (February 2010).
33 See Table IV–5 of the Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (February 2010).
34 See Table 5–2 in the Oklahoma progress report
(page 20).
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11717
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
NOX emissions were 56,786 tpy lower.
These results represent an additional 54
percent reduction in SO2 emissions and
73 percent reduction in NOX emissions
from EGUs since 2011. Overall, from the
2002 baseline year, EGU SO2 emissions
have reduced by 60 percent and EGU
NOX emissions have reduced by 75
percent.
TABLE 2—ANNUAL NOX AND SO2 EMISSIONS FROM EGU POINT SOURCES IN OKLAHOMA *
NOX
(tons)
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
.....................................................................................
SO2
(tons)
85,999
86,502
78,217
85,019
82,810
76,529
79,989
73,357
71,439
77,983
64,338
49,178
37,562
28,097
24,895
21,197
106,318
109,803
100,098
103,985
106,091
100,111
101,320
95,307
85,135
92,351
77,128
74,632
72,855
61,971
49,485
42,081
Heat input
(MMBtu)
553,566,474
574,470,072
558,112,281
606,763,914
620,400,705
622,537,676
647,315,009
626,058,610
603,295,697
628,579,599
619,284,535
558,628,131
519,423,413
531,490,156
502,603,800
430,070,391
NOX Emission
rate
(lb/MMBtu)
SO2 Emission
rate
(lb/MMBtu)
0.311
0.301
0.280
0.280
0.267
0.246
0.247
0.234
0.237
0.248
0.208
0.176
0.145
0.106
0.099
0.099
0.384
0.382
0.359
0.343
0.342
0.322
0.313
0.304
0.282
0.294
0.249
0.267
0.281
0.233
0.197
0.196
* Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
A more-detailed breakdown of the
distribution of emission trends for each
contributing pollutant species from all
sources can be seen in Section 4.
Emission Tracking, of this proposed
action.
The EPA’s NEI total point source data
for Oklahoma in Table 3 shows that
reported PM emissions remained
relatively consistent from their NEI
baseline totals for the first
implementation period. Total 2014 NOX
and SO2 point sources emissions are
lower than the 2002 baseline emission
levels.
TABLE 3—NEI TOTAL POINT SOURCE EMISSION DATA FOR OKLAHOMA FOR 2002–2014 a
NOX
(tpy)
Year b
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
a As
163,417
100,681
142,157
161,396
122,346
SO2
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
150,388
113,344
137,047
118,921
102,524
7,106
3,551
6,638
7,557
6,764
PM10
(tpy)
12,744
7,044
14,390
13,736
11,225
reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database for point sources only.
NEI data is generated every three years.
b Comprehensive
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
In addition to the above reductions,
ODEQ’s progress report mentions that it
anticipates some additional future
reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions
due to more stringent CSAPR budgets
that apply to EGUs in Texas and most
eastern states.35 These emissions
contribute to or are precursors for the
formation of sulfurous and nitrate PM,
which together comprise the majority of
haze affecting the WMWA. Also, as
mentioned earlier, BART controls at
35 Since the submission of Oklahoma’s Progress
Report, the CSAPR SO2 budget for Texas has been
replaced by the Texas Intrastate Regional Haze Bartalternative SO2 trading program—EPA finalized its
determination that the intrastate trading program is
an appropriate SO2 BART alternative for EGUs in
Texas (see 82 FR 48324 October 17, 2017 and 83
FR 43586, August 27, 2018). Any additional future
reductions in SO2 attributed to Texas would be the
result of said trading program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
Oklahoma-based EGUs (OG&E’s
Muskogee and Sooner plants had until
January 2019 to complete their
installation of BART controls per the
recent FIP) are also expected to result in
further haze-forming emissions
reductions from within the State.
The EPA proposes to conclude that
the State adequately addressed the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)
with its summary of emission
reductions of visibility-impairing
pollutants. Overall, the State
demonstrated the emission reductions
achieved for visibility-impairing
pollutants in the State for the first
implementation period. Emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM, the main
contributors to regional haze in
Oklahoma, have all been decreasing.
Even before additional BART limits and
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
lower CSAPR budgets have been fully
implemented, the SO2 and NOX haze
pollutant precursors from EGU point
sources in the State have decreased from
the baseline levels in 2002. In addition,
with the promulgation of the CSAPR
Update in September of 2016, which
included Oklahoma and Texas EGUs
within the ozone-season NOX budget
trading program and applied in 20 other
eastern states, reduced NOX emissions
were required beginning in the 2017
ozone season.36
3. Visibility Conditions
In their progress report, ODEQ
provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I area within
Oklahoma’s borders. The progress report
addressed current visibility conditions,
36 See
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
81 FR 74506 (October 26, 2016).
28MRP1
11718
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility
conditions (expressed in terms of fiveyear averaged of these annual values,
with values for the haziest (i.e., most
impaired), and clearest (i.e., least
impaired) days), and the change in
visibility impairment.
Oklahoma’s progress report provides
figures with visibility monitoring data
for WMWA. Additionally, EPA has
obtained and examined visibility data
for more recent five-year time periods
from the IMPROVE network’s
monitoring data. Table 4, below, shows
the visibility conditions from 2002–16,
compared to the natural/baseline
visibility conditions in deciviews (dv).
TABLE 4—IMPROVE VISIBILITY TRENDS FOR THE WICHITA MOUNTAINS WIMO1 MONITOR *
Annual
average
haze index,
haziest days
(dv)
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
23.6
23.6
24.2
25.7
21.8
22.8
21.6
21.8
22.9
20.2
20.3
21.2
18.8
17.2
Natural
condition
haze index,
haziest days
(dv)
Annual
average
haze index,
clearest days
(dv)
........................
........................
........................
7.5
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
9.8
10
9.6
10.6
9.7
9.3
9.8
9.2
10.3
8.9
8.4
9.3
8.5
8.1
Natural
condition
haze index,
clearest days
(dv)
........................
........................
........................
3
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
* See the IMPROVE Visibility Trend Charts for the Wichita Mountains WIMO1 monitor: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv-summaries/.
Although visibility conditions have
varied from year to year, Table 6–8 of
the progress report shows that WMWA
has displayed an overall improvement
in visibility since 2001. At the time the
progress report was produced, WMWA
showed improved visibility when
comparing the 2000 to 2004 baseline
period to the 2009 to 2013 visibility
period (the most recent five-year average
presented in ODEQ’s progress report)
during the most impaired days of the
first implementation period. The
progress report’s most recent five-year
average of 21.25 dv 37 shows that as of
2013, WMWA met the 2010 regional
haze SIP RPGs for the twenty percent
most impaired days.38 The WMWA
Class I area also showed improvement
from the 2000 to 2004 baseline on the
twenty percent least impaired days for
the first implementation period.
Visibility conditions at WMWA had
improved nearly enough to meet the
RPG for 2018 for the best quintile of
days,39 with a five-year average of 9.25
dv.40
That being said, the 2010 Regional
Haze SIP RPGs for the twenty percent
least impaired and most impaired days
for WMWA were disapproved as part of
the previously mentioned, EPA FIP of
January 2016 and replaced with revised
RPGs developed by EPA. Though the
FIP was stayed at the time the State
submitted the progress report SIP, the
State included these revised RPGs (for
2018 standards) of 9.22 dv and 21.33 dv
for best and worst quintiles,
respectively, in its progress report.
When comparing the 2018 RPGs
calculated by EPA in its final action
with the observed five-year visibility
trends reported in the State’s progress
report, WMWA has exceeded the
visibility improvements needed to meet
the goal for the worst quintile days; and
was close to meeting the goal for the
best quintile days (9.25 versus 9.22 dv)
as of 2013.
IMPROVE’s data from 2001–16
demonstrates that visibility for the
haziest/worst days at the Wichita
Mountains monitoring site has been
improving at a rate of 0.41 dv/year.41
The average visibility for WMWA on the
worst days has been below the 2018
RPGs calculated by EPA since the 2009–
14 five-year period, as seen in Table 5.
Most recently, the 2012–16 period
showed the visibility at the Wichita
Mountains to be 19.54 dv, 1.79 dv below
the EPA calculated 2018 RPGs. We note
that the visibility conditions needed to
meet the uniform rate of progress for
2018 is 20.01 dv for the twenty percent
most impaired days.
TABLE 5—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT WMWA CLASS I AREA FOR THE TWENTY PERCENT WORST DAYS
Class I area
Baseline
(2000–2004)
(dv)
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area
(2007–2011) a
(dv)
(2008–2012) a
(dv)
(2009–2013) a
(dv)
(2010–2014) b
(dv)
(2011–2015) b
(dv)
(2012–2016) b
(dv)
2018 FIPrevised RPGs
(dv)
22.26
21.61
21.25
21.28
20.68
19.54
21.33
23.83
Most recently
available
data v.
baseline data
(dv)
¥2.5
a 4-yr
average b/c there was no available data for 2009.
b Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring data for Wichita Mountains.
37 See Table 6–8 on pages 27–28 of the progress
report.
38 In the 2010 Regional Haze SIP, WMWA had a
visibility impairment reduction goal of 2.33 dv (See
Table IX–3, pg. 107) to reach a RPG of 21.47 dv by
2018 for ‘‘worst days’’ (See Table IX–4, pg. 109).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
39 In the 2010 Regional Haze SIP, WMWA had a
RPG of 9.23 dv by 2018 for ‘‘best days’’ (page 104).
See Table 6–8 (pages 27–28) and the chart on page
29 of the progress report.
40 See Table 6–8 on pages 27–28 of the progress
report.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
41 Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring
data for Wichita Mountains: https://vista.cira.
colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv-summaries/.
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11719
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
IMPROVE’s clearest/best days
monitoring data from 2001 to 2016
indicates that the haze index values at
the WMWA monitor has been declining
at a rate of 0.12 dv/year.42 The average
visibility for WMWA on the clearest of
days has been below the 2018 RPGs
calculated by EPA since the 2010 to
2015 five-year period as seen in Table
6. Most recently, the 2012 to 2016
period showed the best days’ visibility
at the Wichita Mountains to be 0.58 dv
below the 2018 RPGs.
TABLE 6—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT WMWA CLASS I AREA FOR THE TWENTY PERCENT BEST DAYS
Baseline
(2000–2004)
(dv)
Class I area
Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area
(2007–2011) a
(dv)
(2008–2012) a
(dv)
(2009–2013) a
(dv)
(2010–2014) b
(dv)
(2011–2015) b
(dv)
(2012–2016) b
(dv)
2018 FIPrevised RPGs
(dv)
9.80
9.65
9.25
9.22
9.08
8.64
9.22
9.92
Most recently
available
data v.
baseline data
(dv)
¥1.28
a 4-yr
average b/c there was no available data for 2009.
b Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring data for Wichita Mountains.
EPA proposes to conclude that
Oklahoma has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State
provided baseline visibility conditions
(2000 to 2004), current conditions based
on the most recently available visibility
monitoring data available at the time of
progress report development, the
difference between these current sets of
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, and the change in
visibility impairment from 2009–13.
The WMWA has shown improved
visibility for the most impaired and
least impaired days since 2001 and is
projected to continue to improve with
additional future emission reductions
due to BART and other measures.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its progress report SIP, the State
presents NEI emission inventories for
the 2002 baseline year and 2011, as well
as projected inventories for 2018.43 The
pollutants inventoried include SO2,
NOX, NH3, VOC, PM2.5 (i.e., fine
particulates), and PM10–PM2.5 (i.e.,
coarse particulates). The inventories
were categorized for all major visibilityimpairing pollutants under biogenic and
major anthropogenic source groupings.
The anthropogenic source categorization
included on and non-road mobile
sources; point sources; and area sources.
The 2011 NEI inventory was the latest
comprehensive inventory available at
the time the State prepared its progress
report SIP revision in 2016.
Reductions in emissions from the
baseline year to 2011 occurred in every
pollutant with the exception of VOCs
and coarse particulates, which increased
by 16 percent and 79 percent
respectively. The dramatic increase in
coarse particulates can be attributed to
drought conditions which developed in
late 2010 and intensified in 2011 for the
WMWA. The three-month period of
June through August of 2011 ranked as
the ‘‘hottest [summer] ever recorded in
any state.’’ 44 ODEQ asserts that the dry
conditions and intense heat resulted in
an increase in coarse PM from the
resulting dust storms.45 Total NOX and
SO2 emissions were reduced by 54,211
and 46,372 tpy, with the largest
reductions of NOX being realized from
the on-road and non-road mobile
sources categories; and two thirds of the
SO2 reductions attributed to point
sources. 46
For comparison purposes, EPA
provides additional 2008 and 2014 NEI
data.47 A breakdown of the total
emissions for the state can be seen
below in Table 7.
TABLE 7—COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE EMISSIONS TO CENRAP 2018 PROJECTIONS
2002 State
reported
baseline
emissions
(tpy)
Pollutant species
SO2 ......................................................................................
NOX ......................................................................................
NH3 ......................................................................................
VOCs ....................................................................................
PM2.5 ....................................................................................
PM10 .....................................................................................
2008 NEI
total
emissions
(tpy) *
170,021
502,122
143,179
1,375,653
124,954
438,852
148,710
463,951
112,650
1,356,355
168,554
809,223
2011 NEI
total
emissions
(tpy)
123,649
447,911
112,230
1,600,734
103,638
666,672
2014 NEI
total
emissions
(tpy) *
109,210
385,782
112,863
1,505,886
133,381
488,258
CENRAP 2018
projections
(tpy)
119,776
369,248
182,605
1,581,788
142,252
429,945
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS gateway database
In its 2010 Regional Haze SIP, ODEQ
determined that the primary visibilityimpairing pollutants in Oklahoma
include SO2, NOX, and PM (both PM10
and 2.5). Oklahoma provides in its
progress report SIP a comparison of the
inventories for all potential visibility-
impairing pollutants for 2002 (the
baseline year), recent NEI data for 2011,
and CENRAP-projected data for 2018.48
This span is sufficiently representative
of emission levels for the purpose of
EPA’s review of the progress report. A
comparison of the data for these years
42 Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring
data for Wichita Mountains: https://vista.cira.
colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv-summaries/.
43 Emission development and air quality
modeling were performed by the Central Regional
Air Planning Association (CENRAP) in support of
SIP development in the central states region for
2002 and projected 2018 emissions.
44 See page 18, Section 4.4 of the progress report.
45 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
shows that total state emissions have
decreased for all of the visibilityimpairing pollutants except for VOCs
and PM10, which had slight to modest
increases (14% and 34%) over 2008,
respectively. VOC emissions increased
by 225,081 tpy since 2002, but CENRAP
46 See
Table 5–2 (page 20) of the progress report.
reported in the online EPA Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database for total
state emissions.
48 Page 20 of the progress report.
47 As
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11720
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
modeling has demonstrated that
anthropogenic VOCs do not
significantly impair visibility at
WMWA. Total PM10 levels appear to
have spiked briefly after 2002 and then
began to steadily decline. More recently
available 2014 NEI data shows that,
other than PM10 levels, the emissions
inventory for all pollutants is currently
below the CENRAP 2018 Projections.
Despite not already having met the 2018
projections, Oklahoma’s PM10 emissions
declined nearly 40 percent from 2008
levels.
The projected 2018 CENRAP data also
showed that there is an anticipated
overall downward trend in SO2, and
NOX. The decrease in SO2 is especially
noteworthy as sulfurous emissions
contribute the most to visibility
impairment at WMWA. (Nitrate
particulate matter forms from NOX
emissions but occurs predominantly
during the winter months; whereas
sulfurous aerosol comprises the
plurality during the rest of the year.) 49
Because of the limiting role of NOX
and SO2 on PM2.5-formation, and the
uncertainties in assessing the effect of
NH3 emission reductions on visibility,
Oklahoma does not consider ammonia
among the visibility-impairing
pollutants.50
When considered as a whole, the
above indicates that the main precursors
that cause the formation of haze and
visibility impairment in Oklahoma are
being reduced.
Table 8 below shows the inventoried
categories that were the driving factors
behind the total emission trends. Nearly
every category across the inventory
showed emission decreases for each
pollutant. The total emissions change
for each pollutant, except NH3 and
VOCs, showed a reduction from 2008 to
2014. The trends were consistent with
the emission trends shown in section II,
A, 2 of this proposed action, which also
showed the latest updates for EGUs.
TABLE 8—2014 EMISSION DATA (TPY) AND THE CATEGORY CHANGES SINCE 2008 FOR OKLAHOMA *
Category
NOX
SO2
PM10
PM2.5
NH3
Agricultural/Biogenic ...........................................
0 ......................
Fugitive Dust ......................................................
37,854 .............
(¥5,637) .........
138,795 ...........
(¥8,375) .........
9,707 ...............
(¥1,661) .........
0 ......................
1,759 ...............
(¥2,976) .........
4,362 ...............
(¥901) ............
0 ......................
1,041,372
(+180,237)
1,283,217
(+173,338)
111,238
(¥21,782)
0
0 ......................
0 ......................
0 ......................
0
Non-road Mobile .................................................
20,462 .............
(¥7,180) .........
92,071 .............
(¥43,267) .......
126,000 ...........
(¥17,071) .......
44 ....................
(¥472) ............
450 ..................
(¥757) ............
102,846 ...........
(¥34,270) .......
38,845 .............
(+5,457) ...........
79,251 .............
(¥23,170) .......
47,146 .............
(¥4,819) .........
2,029 ...............
(¥1,193) .........
19,815 .............
(¥33,262) .......
1,912 ...............
(¥677) ............
2,834 ...............
(¥1,519) .........
8,361 ...............
(¥619) ............
95,232 .............
(¥2,142) .........
100,409 ...........
(+2,166) ...........
11,798 .............
(+2,633) ...........
0 ......................
Road Dust ..........................................................
199,471 ...........
(+32,530) .........
421,375 ...........
(¥305,703) .....
56,858 .............
(¥4,145) .........
20,292 .............
(¥11,924) .......
175,729 ...........
(¥329,400) .....
2,004 ...............
(¥703) ............
4,986 ...............
(¥661) ............
11,486 .............
(¥3,056) .........
31 ....................
(+2) ..................
1,600 ...............
(¥555) ............
3,292 ...............
(+233) ..............
20,885
(¥10,011)
42,735
(¥14,225)
50,777
(+23,871)
¥83,191 ..........
¥39,376 ..........
¥623,062 ........
¥59,802 ..........
+2,337 .............
+331,428
Area/Non-point ...................................................
Fires ...................................................................
On-road Mobile ..................................................
Point Sources .....................................................
Total Emission Change ...............................
VOC
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate an increase (+) or decrease (¥) in emissions from 2008.
* As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA is proposing to find that the State
adequately addressed the provisions of
40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions
tracking because the State compared the
most recent updated emission inventory
data for the key visibility impairing
pollutants across Oklahoma available at
the time of progress report development
with the baseline emissions used in the
modeling for the regional haze plan. The
results showed that the emissions from
SO2, NOX, and PM, the main
contributors of regional haze in
Oklahoma, have all been decreasing
since 2008. The State’s analysis relied
on the latest emissions data available to
them at the time (2002 to 2011); 51 and
the EPA provided additional updates for
2008 and 2014.
49 Page
66 of the 2010 Regional Haze SIP.
69 of the 2010 Regional Haze SIP. EPA
agreed with Oklahoma’s decision to exclude
ammonia in our December 2011 final rile. 76 FR
81727, 81754 (December 28, 2011).
51 While ideally the five-year period to be
analyzed for emission inventory changes is defined
as the time period since the current regional haze
SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag
50 Page
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
Oklahoma also provided an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the State that could limit or
impede reasonable progress. Data
presented in the State’s progress
report 52 indicates that there were no
significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions that have limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility.
Visibility Conditions as the WMWA
Class I area demonstrated overall
downward trends in Haze Index values
for both its best (i.e., ‘‘clearest’’) and
worst (i.e., ‘‘haziest’’) days. EPA
proposes to agree with Oklahoma’s
conclusion that there have been no
significant changes in emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants which
have limited or impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving
visibility in Class I areas impacted by
the State’s sources. Although Oklahoma
continues to experience visibility
impacts from sources outside the State
that affect the WMWA Class I area,53
this progress report demonstrates that,
the State remains on track to meet both
its original and the EPA-determined
2018 RPGs for the Class I area in
Oklahoma. EPA is not evaluating at this
time whether existing trends in
emissions are sufficient, or could
impede or limit progress, with respect to
any future RPGs for subsequent
planning periods for Class I areas in
Oklahoma.
in developing and reporting complete emissions
inventories once quality-assured emissions data
becomes available.
52 See page 20 of the progress report.
53 Oklahoma’s initial SIP Revision for Regional
Haze documented that the majority of visibility
impairment at the Wichita Mountains results from
emissions generated in Texas. EPA’s examination
and review of Oklahoma’s reasonable progress
consultation with Texas determined that additional
emissions reductions from Texas were necessary to
address visibility impairment at WMWA for the
first implementation period ending in 2018, and
issued a FIP for Texas to that effect, requiring
additional emissions reductions from eight coalfired electric power plants (See 81 FR 295). This
action was subsequently stayed and later remanded.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11721
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
The State concludes that it is on track
to meet the 2018 RPGs for the WMWA
based on the trends in visibility and
emissions presented in its progress
report. In its progress report SIP
submittal, the State assesses the 2010
SIP elements and strategies and
determines that, based upon emission
trends and monitor data, they were
sufficient to enable Oklahoma to meet
all the originally established RPGs.54
The state notes that the visibility at the
WMWA has improved sufficiently to
meet the originally established RPGs for
2018 during 2009–2013 for the 20%
worst days and they anticipate further
improvement in visibility as additional
emission reductions occur due to
implementation of BART controls.
The evaluation set forth by the State
also shows that it is meeting the revised
RPGs that EPA calculated in its
currently stayed January 2016 FIP action
for Texas and Oklahoma.55 In its
progress report, Oklahoma shows it was
achieving greater visibility
improvements than the EPA-calculated
RPGs at WMWA for the worst quintile
of days.56 Based on more recently
available monitored data, the State has
also reached its 2018 goals for the best
quintile days as well. We note that the
recent monitored data showing visibility
improvements at WMWA also meet the
uniform rate of progress for 2018 of
20.01 dv for the twenty percent most
impaired days.
EPA proposes to find that Oklahoma
has adequately addressed the provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
strategy assessment. In its progress
report SIP, Oklahoma describes the
improving visibility trends using data
from the IMPROVE network and the
downward emissions trends in NOX and
SO2 emissions in the State. These trends
support the State’s determination that
its regional haze plan is sufficient to
meet the 2018 RPGs for Class I areas
within the State. Oklahoma also notes
that additional improvement in
visibility conditions are anticipated in
the future after installation of all
controls required to meet BART (see
Table 1).
EPA’s modeling data used to develop
the previously mentioned FIP and SIP
revisions for Oklahoma’s subject-toBART EGU sources, also demonstrated
that the potential visibility impacts for
Class I areas outside the state would be
significantly reduced by
implementation of the associated
revised BART controls/limits.57
With regards to the effect of
Oklahoma’s emissions on other states
with Class I areas, Oklahoma
acknowledges the possible impact of its
sources on Arkansas’ Class I areas,
Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
Wilderness Areas, but concludes that
the impact on visibility conditions in
those areas is negligible.58 ODEQ could
not identify any emissions from within
the State that either prevented or
inhibited reasonable progress at Class I
areas outside the State, nor had they
(ODEQ) been contacted any other state
to assert such an interstate-transport
impact.
In support of this assertion, we submit
that Arkansas’ Class I areas have seen
marked improvement in visibility since
the start of regional haze monitoring.
Based on Arkansas’ respective
IMPROVE data, the haze index for the
20 percent worst days of visibility at
both the Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
Wilderness Areas have been steadily
improving as a result of reduced
emissions within Arkansas and because
of broader industrial and energy trends
in other states. EPA’s review of recent
monitoring data 59 from Arkansas’ Class
I areas indicates that both Caney Creek
and Upper Buffalo are well on track for
demonstrating improved visibility for
the most impaired and least impaired
days since 2001.60 Based on the fiveyear rolling averages, both wilderness
areas are not only on schedule but have
also outperformed their stricter revised
2018 RPGs for the twenty percent worst
days 61 (22.47 and 22.51 dv; See Table
9).
TABLE 9—VISIBILITY CONDITIONS AT ARKANSAS CLASS I AREAS FOR TWENTY PERCENT WORST DAYS
Baseline
(2000–2004)
(dv)
Class I area
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Caney Creek Wilderness .........................
Upper Buffalo Wilderness ........................
(2007–2011)
(dv)
26.36
26.27
(2008–2012)
(dv)
22.99
24.15
(2009–2013)
(dv)
22.69
22.99
22.23
22.16
(2010–2014)
(dv)
2018 Revised
RPGs
(dv)
21.83
21.63
22.47
22.51
Based on the above, the State’s
assertion that sources in Oklahoma are
not interfering with the achievement of
any other neighboring state’s RPGs for
their respective Class I areas for the first
planning period appears valid.62
EPA is proposing to approve
Oklahoma’s finding that the elements
and strategies in its implementation
plan are sufficient to achieve the RPGs
for the WMWA Class I area in the State
and for any Class I areas in nearby states
potentially impacted by sources in the
State.
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
54 Note that states don’t necessarily need to refer
to specific RPGs to meet the requirements of
51.308(g)(6). If they’re currently achieving more
reductions than they anticipated when they
developed their SIP, this demonstrates that they’re
on track to ensure RP in class I areas.
55 On March 18, 2016, Texas filed a request for
a stay of the FIP. On July 15, 2016, the court issued
a stay of the FIP, including the emission control
requirements. ODEQ notes that the RPG at WMWA
presumably depends on the outcome of this
litigation.
56 See Table 6–8 on pages 27 to 28 of the progress
report SIP.
57 See Comments on Modeling section, 76 FR
81738–81739 (December 28, 2011).
58 ODEQ noted in its progress report SIP revision
(on page 30) that, ‘‘Although it is rare that
emissions from Oklahoma impact the Caney Creek
and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas in Arkansas
due to the location of large pollutant emitting
sources in Oklahoma combined with the prevailing
wind direction and topographical setup along the
Oklahoma/Arkansas border, DEQ will continue to
surveil these and other necessary Class I areas in
other states.’’
59 See RPG Calculation Data Sheets, sip-rev-rpgcalcs.xlsx and visibility-progress.xlsx provided at
https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/
regional-haze.aspx.
60 See figures 2 to 9 and tables 5 to 8 (pages 28
to 39) of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM
SIP revision.
61 See page 54 of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO
2
and PM SIP revision.
62 In its 2011 SIP submittal, see 76 FR 64186 at
64196 (October 17, 2011), Arkansas concluded that
the impact from Oklahoma sources (among other
states) was non-impactful: ‘‘ADEQ determined that
additional emissions reductions from other States
are not necessary to address visibility impairment
at Caney Creek and the Upper Buffalo for the first
implementation period ending in 2018, and all
states participating in its consultations agreed with
this.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:13 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The monitoring strategy for regional
haze in Oklahoma relies upon
participation in the Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) regional haze
monitoring network. IMPROVE provides
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
11722
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
a long-term record for tracking visibility
improvement or degradation. Oklahoma
currently relies on data collected
through the IMPROVE network to
satisfy the regional haze monitoring
requirement as specified in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule.
In its progress report SIP, Oklahoma
summarizes the existing IMPROVE
monitoring network and its intended
continued reliance on it for future
visibility planning. Measurements at the
Wichita Mountains monitoring site
began in March 2001 and were
compiled via the IMPROVE ‘‘WIMO1’’
monitor.63 The IMPROVE program
makes data available on the internet and
submits it to EPA’s air quality system.
For the progress report, Oklahoma
evaluates its use of the IMPROVE
monitoring network and found it to be
satisfactory.
Oklahoma reaffirmed its continued
reliance upon the IMPROVE monitoring
network. Oklahoma also explained the
importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at
its Class I area and identified that it did
not anticipate any changes to its
reliance on the network for visibility
assessments. EPA proposes to find that
Oklahoma has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g) regarding monitoring strategy
because the State reviewed its visibility
monitoring strategy and determined that
no further modifications to the strategy
are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the
Existing Implementation Plan
In its progress report SIP, Oklahoma
submits a negative declaration to EPA
regarding the need for additional actions
or emissions reductions in Oklahoma
beyond those already in place and those
to be implemented by 2018 according to
Oklahoma’s regional haze plan.
Oklahoma determined that the current
version of its regional haze plan requires
no further substantive revision at this
time to achieve the 2018 RPGs for Class
I areas affected by the State’s sources.
The basis for the State’s declaration is
the findings from the progress report SIP
which conclude that the control
measures in Oklahoma’s regional haze
plan are on track to meet their
implementation schedules and the
reduction of SO2, NOX and PM
emissions from subject to BART EGUs
in Oklahoma continues to be the
appropriate strategy for improvement of
visibility in Oklahoma’s WMWA Class I
63 Wichita
Mountains Wildlife Refuge personnel
operate and maintain the IMPROVE particulate
sampler and are responsible for disseminating and
submitting the collected data (See Oklahoma’s
initial regional haze SIP revision, pg. 8.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
area. Additional improvements in
visibility are expected to continue, as at
the time of submission for the progress
report, the major emitting facilities in
Oklahoma had not yet installed their
respective BART controls.
Review of more recent emissions and
visibility data shows that EGU SO2 and
NOX emissions dropped from 2002 to
2017 by 64,802 and 64,237 tons,
respectively; and the actual change in
visibility observed/reported via its
IMPROVE monitor through 2016 for the
WMWA Class I area is better 64 than
what the State predicted for 2016 and is
currently exceeding the uniform rate of
progress.65 EPA proposes to conclude
that Oklahoma has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the
visibility trends at the WMWA Class I
area and at Class I areas outside the
State potentially impacted by sources
within Oklahoma and the emissions
trends of the largest emitters of
visibility-impairing pollutants in the
State indicate that the relevant RPGs
will be met; and support the State’s
determination of the adequacy of its SIP.
C. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i),
the state must provide the FLMs with an
opportunity for consultation, at least 60
days prior to holding any public
hearings on an implementation plan (or
plan revision). The state must also
include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. ODEQ shared its draft
progress report with the FLMs on April
11, 2016; and notified them of the
associated public review comment
period on August 2, 2016 and of the
opportunity to request a public hearing
(for September 6, 2016). The FLM
comments and Oklahoma’s responses
are presented in Appendix II of the
progress report.
The EPA proposes to find that
Oklahoma has addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
Oklahoma provided a 60-day period for
the FLMs to comment on the progress
report, which was at least 60 days before
seeking public comments, and provides
a summary of these comments and
responses to these comments in the
progress report.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the State
of Oklahoma regional haze five-year
64 AQRV Summary data for the WIMO 1 monitor
at WMWA indicates that the 2017 observed
visibility was 17.23 dv—4.1 dv lower than the FIPrevised 2018 RPG for the haziest of days.
65 See the Visibility Impairment Projections graph
on page 29 of the progress report SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
progress report SIP revision (submitted
September 28, 2016) as meeting the
applicable regional haze requirements
under the CAA and set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g), (h) and (i). Because the SIP
and FIP will ensure the control of SO2
and NOX emissions reductions relied
upon by Oklahoma and other states in
setting their reasonable progress goals,
EPA is proposing to approve
Oklahoma’s finding that there is no
need for revision of the existing
implementation plan to achieve the
reasonable progress goals for the Class I
areas in Oklahoma and in nearby states
impacted by Oklahoma sources.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action proposes to approve a State’s
determination that their current regional
haze plan is meeting federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. This proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be an Executive
Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2019 / Proposed Rules
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 2019.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019–05860 Filed 3–27–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 30
[GN Docket No. 14–177, AU Docket No. 19–
59; DA 19–196]
Notice of Initial 39 GHz
Reconfiguration Procedures
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed auction
procedures.
amozie on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(Bureau), in cooperation with the Office
of Economics and Analytics (OEA), on
behalf of the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission or FCC),
seeks comment on the next steps toward
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Mar 27, 2019
Jkt 247001
implementing the procedures to
reconfigure the 39 GHz band in
preparation for the incentive auction
that will offer new flexible use licenses
in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47
GHz bands. In this document, the
Bureau also temporarily freezes
processing of future applications for
transfers and assignments of 39 GHz
licenses in order to facilitate the
reconfiguration process and acts
pursuant to section 316 to modify
incumbents’ 39 GHz licenses in
accordance with the Commission’s
proposed order of modification.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
April 15, 2019; reply comments are due
on or before April 26, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by AU Docket No. 19–59, by
any of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
Commission’s website for submitting
comments and transmit one electronic
copy of the filing to AU Docket 19–59.
For ECFS filers, in completing the
transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service
mailing address, and the applicable
docket number.
• To get filing instructions, filers
should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov,
and include the following words in the
body of the message, ‘‘get form your
email address’’. A sample form and
instructions will be sent in response.
The Bureau also requests all comments
and reply comments to be submitted
electronically to the following email
address: auction103@fcc.gov.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11723
• Commercial Overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction,
Annapolis, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority must be addressed
to 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC
20554.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov,
phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–
0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
(UMFUS) questions, Simon Banyai of
the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202)
418–2487 or Simon.Banyai@fcc.gov; for
auction legal questions: Erik Salovaara
of the Office of Economics and
Analytics, Auctions Division, at (202)
418–0660 or Erik.Salovaara@fcc.gov.
For information regarding the PRA
information collection requirements
contained in this PRA, contact Cathy
Williams, Office of Managing Director,
at (202) 418–2918 or Cathy.Williams@
fcc.gov.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document (Public Notice), GN Docket
No. 14–177, AU Docket No. 19–59, DA
19–196, adopted on March 20, 2019 and
released on March 20, 2019. The
complete text of this document is
available for public inspection and
copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or
from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays
in the FCC Reference Information
Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text is available on the
Commission’s website at https://
wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search
function on the ECFS web page at
https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Alternative formats are available to
persons with disabilities by sending an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the
Commission’s rules, this document shall
be treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
E:\FR\FM\28MRP1.SGM
28MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11711-11723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05860]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0619; FRL-9990-53-Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress
Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Governor
through the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on
September 28, 2016. The SIP revision addresses requirements of federal
regulations that direct the State to submit a periodic report
describing progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established
for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the existing
implementation plan.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-
0619, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit any information electronically that is considered
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include all
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing systems). For
additional submission methods, please contact Bill Deese, 214-665-7253,
[email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clovis Steib, (214) 665-7566,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' each mean the EPA.
I. Background
A. Oklahoma's Regional Haze SIP
In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas where
impairment results from manmade air pollution.\1\ Congress added
section 169B to the CAA in 1990 that added visibility protection
provisions, and the EPA promulgated final regulations addressing
regional haze as part of the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, which was most
recently updated
[[Page 11712]]
in 2017.\2\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing 1980 visibility
regulations and established a more comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in the EPA's broader visibility
protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 309. The regional haze
regulations require states to demonstrate reasonable progress toward
meeting the national goal of a return to natural visibility conditions
for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside states by
2064. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP revision at
periodic intervals applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and the Virgin Islands. Oklahoma submitted its initial regional haze
SIP on February 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977. The EPA, in consultation with the
Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility was identified as an important value. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries,
such as park expansions. Although states and tribes may designate
additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in the CAA applies only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' When the term ``Class
I area'' is used in this action, it means ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' [See 44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979 and CAA
Sections 162(a), 169A, and 302(i)].
\2\ See the July 1, 1999 Regional Haze Rule final action (64 FR
35714), as amended on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), October 13, 2006
(71 FR 60631), June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33656) and on January 10, 2017
(84 FR 3079).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma's 2010 Regional Haze SIP included calculations of baseline
and natural visibility conditions for the Wichita Mountains Wilderness
Area (``Wichita Mountains'' or WMWA),\3\ the only Class I area located
in Oklahoma (and potentially affected Class I areas located elsewhere),
a long-term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment,
RPGs for the WMWA reflective of the visibility conditions projected to
be achieved by the end of the first implementation period, and a
monitoring and reporting strategy. The 2010 Regional Haze SIP also
included determinations of emission limitations and schedules for
compliance for a group of Oklahoma industrial air emissions sources
that are subject to best available retrofit technology (BART) \4\ under
national Regional Haze Program requirements. Oklahoma's Regional Haze
SIP purports that visibility improvement at the WMWA is limited by the
impact of out-of-state emission sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ WMWA is contained within the Wichita Mountains National
Wildlife Refuge and is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The Refuge is located in Comanche County adjacent to Fort
Sill Military Reservation, a U.S. Army training base. The city of
Lawton is the closest population center and is located 22 miles
southeast of the Refuge.
\4\ Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use
of retrofit controls at certain larger, often under-controlled,
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 toward the natural
visibility goal by controlling emissions of pollutants that
contribute to visibility impairment, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing major stationary sources[thinsp]built
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best
Available Retrofit Technology'' (BART).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2010 Regional Haze SIP evaluated numerous sources for
applicability of BART. Oklahoma relied on BART requirements for
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) from certain electric generating units (EGUs) in the
State in its regional haze plan to meet certain requirements of EPA's
Regional Haze Rule. This reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations
at the time that Oklahoma developed its regional haze plan. EPA
approved core elements of Oklahoma's Regional Haze SIP, including BART
determinations for the majority of emissions units that were subject to
BART. Those determinations became effective on January 27, 2012 (76 FR
81728, December 28, 2011). However, EPA disapproved ODEQ's BART
determinations for SO2 emissions from six-coal-fired EGUs
located at three facilities. As a result, EPA issued a federal
implementation plan (FIP), promulgating revised SO2 BART
emission limits on coal-fired EGUs at those three facilities.\5\ The
FIP affects two units at each of two facilities owned and operated by
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (OG&E): Muskogee Generating Station
in Muskogee County, and Sooner Generating Station in Noble County. The
FIP also initially applied to two units at American Electric Power/
Public Service Company of Oklahoma's (AEP/PSO's) Northeastern Power
Station in Rogers County, but those requirements have since been
removed from the FIP after EPA approval of a SIP revision addressing
these units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011), codified at 40 CFR
52.1923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the December 2011 action, EPA also disapproved the State's LTS
for regional haze because the LTS relied on the BART limits in the
disapproved determinations. EPA also disapproved portions of Oklahoma's
Interstate Transport SIP for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 1997
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (submitted to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it
applies to visibility, also known as ``prong 4''). Specifically, this
disapproval found that the SIP submittal had not prevented
SO2 emissions from the above-mentioned units from
interfering with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plans of other states to protect visibility.
Subsequently, EPA promulgated the aforementioned FIP, to address these
deficiencies.\6\ EPA took no action on Oklahoma's RPGs for WMWA,
pending its evaluation of impacts of out-of-state emission sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The final rule noted in 40 CFR 52.1928(c) that the FIP
satisfied these deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 2014, EPA published a document \7\ in the Federal
Register approving Oklahoma's 2013 SIP revision \8\ submitted to
address certain disapproved portions of the Regional Haze SIP related
to the BART determination for two coal-fired units located at American
Electric Power/Public Service Company of Oklahoma's (AEP/PSO's)
Northeastern Power Station in Rogers County, Oklahoma. A separate
document, published simultaneously,\9\ withdrew the EPA-issued FIP as
it relates to the Northeastern Power Station facility. The approved
revision also satisfied the previously disapproved portions of
Oklahoma's Interstate Transport SIP and the Regional Haze SIP's LTS, as
those portions relate to the subject facility. The FIP still applies
(unaltered) to the four affected units at the Muskogee and Sooner
Generating Stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 79 FR 12944.
\8\ Oklahoma's Proposed Regional Haze Implementation Plan
Revision submitted on March 20, 2013; available in Docket No. EPA-
R06-OAR-2013-0227.
\9\ See 79 FR 12954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 16, 2014, EPA published a proposed action on the final
portion of Oklahoma's 2010 Regional Haze SIP and on regional haze
obligations for Texas.\10\ As mentioned previously, Oklahoma's 2010 SIP
concluded that visibility progress at the WMWA would be limited by the
impact of out-of-state emission sources; and documented that a
significant portion of the visibility impairment at the WMWA results
from emissions generated in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 79 FR 74818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the magnitude of these interstate impacts, EPA determined
that the Oklahoma and Texas regional haze SIPs were interconnected,
especially considering the relationship between upwind and downwind
states in the reasonable progress and long-term strategy provisions of
the Regional Haze Rule. On January 5, 2016, EPA issued a final action
\11\ for Texas and Oklahoma which:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 81 FR 295 (January 5, 2016), codified at 40 CFR
52.2302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disapproved portions of Texas's implementation plan for
regional haze related to the effects of its emissions at the WMWA and
other Class I areas;
Disapproved a portion of Oklahoma's regional haze SIP
revision, the reasonable progress goals at the
[[Page 11713]]
WMWA, and its reasonable progress consultation with Texas; \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 81 FR 313: ``The Regional Haze Rule required that
Oklahoma use the consultation process under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)
in the development of reasonable progress goals in tandem with
Texas. Nevertheless, throughout the consultations, Oklahoma failed
to explicitly request that Texas further investigate whether
reasonable controls were available or that Texas reduce emissions
from these significantly impacting sources to ensure that all
reasonable measures to improve visibility were included in Texas'
long-term strategy and incorporated into Oklahoma's reasonable
progress goals for the Wichita Mountains. This failure resulted in
the development of improper reasonable progress goals for the
Wichita Mountains.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simultaneously promulgated a FIP for Texas, which required
additional reductions from eight coal-fired electric power plants; and
Calculated new (numerical) reasonable progress goals at
the WMWA.
EPA's actions did not impose any additional requirements on emission
sources within Oklahoma.
That rulemaking was challenged, however, and then stayed in its
entirety by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pending
resolution of the litigation; in March 2017, following the submittal of
a request by the EPA for a voluntary remand of the parts of the rule
under challenge, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the rule
in its entirety.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Texas, et al v. EPA, et al, No. 16-60118 (March 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has not taken new action with respect to the RPGs for WMWA in
Oklahoma. Ultimately, as discussed elsewhere in this action, whether it
is the State's RPGs established in the 2010 RH SIP or the EPA's revised
RPGs in the January 2016 action that are evaluated, our review of the
State's 2016 progress report indicates that Oklahoma's emission
reductions and measured visibility conditions are on track to meet
those goals.
As we state in the Regional Haze Rule, the RPGs set by the state
are not enforceable.\14\ The RPGs represent the State's best estimate
of the degree of visibility improvement that will result at the State's
Class I areas from changes in emissions--changes driven by the
particular set of control measures the state has adopted in its
regional haze SIP to address visibility, as well as all other
enforceable measures expected to reduce emissions over the period of
the SIP. Given the forward-looking nature of RPGs and the range of
assumptions that must be made as to emissions a decade or more in the
future, we expect there to be some uncertainty in a given State's
visibility projections.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 64 FR 35733: ``. . . the reasonable progress goal is a
goal and not a mandatory standard which must be achieved by a
particular date as is the case with the NAAQS. Once a State has
adopted a reasonable progress goal and determined what progress will
be made toward that goal over a 10-year period, the goal itself is
not enforceable. All that is `enforceable' is the set of control
measures which the State has adopted to meet that goal. If the
State's strategies have been implemented but the State has not met
its reasonable progress goal, the State could either: (1) revise its
strategies in the SIP for the next long-term strategy period to meet
its goal, or (2) revise the reasonable progress goals for the next
implementation period. In either case, the State would be required
to base its decisions on appropriate analyses of the statutory
factors included in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of the final
rule.''
\15\ See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Oklahoma's Regional Haze Progress Report
Each state is required to submit a progress report that evaluates
progress towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and
for each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the
state's existing regional haze implementation plan.\16\ The progress
report for the first planning period is due five years after submittal
of the initial regional haze SIP and must take the form of a SIP
revision. Oklahoma submitted its initial regional haze SIP on February
18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Regional Haze Rule requires states to provide in the
progress report an assessment of whether the current
``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet
all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term
``implementation plan'' is defined for purposes of the Regional Haze
Rule to mean any SIP, FIP, or Tribal Implementation Plan. As such,
the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those
in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the
``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2016, Oklahoma submitted its progress report in
the form of a SIP revision under 40 CFR 51.308, which, among other
things, detailed the progress made in the first planning period toward
implementation of the long-term strategy (LTS) outlined in the State's
regional haze plan. The progress report also included the visibility
improvement measured at the WMWA, the only Class I area within
Oklahoma, an assessment of whether Class I areas outside of the State
are potentially impacted by emissions from Oklahoma, and a
determination of the adequacy of the existing implementation plan.
II. EPA's Evaluation of Oklahoma's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
The progress report provides an opportunity for public input on the
State's (and the EPA's) assessment of whether the regional haze SIP is
being implemented appropriately and whether reasonable progress is
being achieved consistent with the projected visibility improvement in
the SIP. This section includes EPA's analysis of Oklahoma's 2016
progress report, and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's
proposed approval.
1. Control Measures
In its progress report, Oklahoma summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by Oklahoma in its
regional haze plan. The major control measures identified by the State
in the progress report are as follows:
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Controls
Oklahoma Control Measures from:
(1) Air Quality Permits
(2) Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(3) Compliance and Enforcement
(4) Mobile Emissions
(5) Cross-State Air Pollution Regulations
(6) Other Measures
Additional Air Pollution Emission Reductions
a. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Controls
On July 6, 2005, EPA published final amendments to its regional
haze rule, which requires emission sources that fit specific criteria
to install BART controls.\17\ The 2010 regional haze SIP originally
determined that there were twenty facilities \18\ in Oklahoma with
BART-eligible sources.\19\ Oklahoma determined six facilities with a
combined total of thirteen (now twelve \20\) units, were subject-to-
BART \21\
[[Page 11714]]
in the 2010 regional haze SIP.\22\ EPA approved Oklahoma's
identification of BART-eligible sources and determination of subject-
to-BART sources in our 2011 final action.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 70 FR 39103 through 39172 (July 6, 2005).
\18\ See Table VI-1 of the 2010 regional haze SIP (page 71).
\19\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of visibility-impairing
pollutants, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7,
1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
\20\ AEP/PSO's Northeastern Power Station closed EGU#4 effective
April 2016.
\21\ Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for ``BART-eligible'' sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. Sources that are reasonably anticipated to cause
or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area are
determined to be subject-to-BART. For each source subject to BART,
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that states identify the level
of control representing BART after considering the factors set out
in CAA section 169A(g).
\22\ See Table VI-4 of the 2010 regional haze SIP (page 73) and
Table 2.1 of the progress report.
\23\ See 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2.4 of the progress report provides a discussion of BART
requirements and implementation status. The current BART determinations
for all subject-to-BART units in Oklahoma following the various,
aforementioned series of SIP revisions and FIPs along with their
implementation status, are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1--Current BART Determinations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART emission limits (in lb/MMBtu) \a\
Facility Unit ----------------------------------------------------------------- BART conditions
SO2 NOX PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OG&E Muskogee Generating Station... Unit 4--coal-fired.... 0.06 \b\............... 0.15 0.10.................. Meet low NOX emission
Unit 5--coal-fired.... limits by 1/27/17 via
installation of low-NOX
burners (LNB) with over-
fire air (OFA). Completed
installation of LNB for
Unit 4 in June 2015; Unit
5 in December 2013.
Meet lower PM emissions
based on existing
controls which included
electro-static
precipitators (ESP).\c\
Units 4 and 5 are now
planned to be converted
over to natural gas in
the Fall of 2018.\d\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OG&E Seminole Generating Station Unit 1--natural gas- Natural Gas as primary 0.203 Natural Gas as primary Meet low NOX emission
\e\. fired. fuel, no additional .............. fuel, no additional limits by 1/27/17 via
Unit 2--natural gas- control required for 0.212 control required for installation of LNB with
fired. BART. .............. BART. OFA and flue gas
Unit 3--natural gas- ....................... 0.164 ...................... recirculation (FGR).
fired. ....................... ...................... Installation was completed
on 2 of the 3 units at
the time of the progress
report SIP submission
(approximately May 2016
for Unit 1 and December
2015 for Unit 2) and the
3rd was completed in May
2017.\f\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OG&E Sooner Generating Station..... Unit 1--coal-fired.... 0.06 \b\............... 0.15 0.10.................. Meet low NOX emission
Unit 2--coal-fired.... limits by 1/27/17 via
installation of LNB with
OFA Completed
installation of the LNB
for Unit 1 in March 2014;
Unit 2 in April 2013.
Meet lower PM emissions
based on existing
controls which included
ESP.\g\
Meet lower SO2 emissions
via installation of dry
gas desulfurization to be
installed by 1/4/19 per
the FIP.
Construction of scrubber
currently ongoing for
Unit 1. Unit 2 is
scheduled to commence in
Fall 2018.\h\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEP/PSO Comanche Power Station \e\. Unit 1--natural gas- Natural Gas as primary 0.15 Natural Gas as primary Meet low NOX emission
fired. fuel, no additional fuel, no additional limits by 1/27/17 via
Unit 2--natural gas- control required for control required for installation of LNB.
fired. BART. BART. Installation completed
(April 2016).\i\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11715]]
AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station Unit 2--natural gas- Natural Gas as primary 0.28 Natural Gas as primary Meet low NOX emission
e j. fired. fuel, no additional .............. fuel, no additional limits by 1/27/17 via
Unit 3--coal-fired.... control required for 0.15 control required for installation of LNB with
Unit 4--coal-fired BART. .............. BART. OFA Completed
(Retired as of April 0.40................... .............. 0.10.................. installation in March
2016).. 2014.\k\
Meet interim NOX and SO2
emission limits until 4/
16/16 when one of the two
units would shut down
(Unit 4 shut down on 4/16/
16).
Remaining unit (#3) must
meet lower SO2 and NOX
emission limits via
installation of LNB with
OFA, and further control
system tuning.
Installation of the LNB
was completed in April
2012; and modifications
to install SO2 controls
have not yet begun.\h\
Remaining unit (#3) also
must incrementally
decrease capacity
utilization during the
period from 2021 to 2026;
and completely shut down
by 12/31/2026.\l\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEP/PSO Southwestern Power Station Unit 3--natural gas- Natural Gas as primary 0.45 Natural Gas as primary Meet low NOX emission
\e\. fired. fuel, so no BART fuel, so no BART limits by 1/27/17 via
requirement for SO2 requirement for PM installation of LNB with
control systems. control systems. OFA Completed
installation in May
2014.\m\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The facilities are currently operating under the federally-enforceable BART-subject emission limits set forth in 76 FR 81728, December 28, 2011,
unless otherwise noted.
\b\ EPA disapproved Oklahoma's SO2 BART determinations and issued a FIP covering the BART-subject units at the facility (40 CFR 52.1923 (2015)). Under
this FIP, each unit must meet lower SO2 emission limits (0.06 lbs/MMBtu Boiler Operation Day) based on installation of emission controls, including
dry flue gas desulfurization. Due to litigation over EPA's decision, the deadline by which these units are required to meet their new SO2 emission
limits contained in the FIP is January 4, 2019.
\c\ See page 12 of the progress report SIP.
\d\ See email response from ODEQ dated June 11, 2018 which has been included in docket for this proposed rulemaking: Units 4 and 5 were converted to
natural gas in February 2017.
\e\ Natural gas units are considered ``grandfathered'' and currently do not have specific emission limits established in the current permit. The BART
NOX and PM10 emission limits for each of the affected units are based on a 30-day rolling average in accordance with the federally-enforceable BART
subject emission limits.
\f\ See page 10 of the progress report SIP; and Email response from ODEQ dated June 11, 2018 which has been included in docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
\g\ See page 11 of the progress report SIP.
\h\ See email response from ODEQ dated June 11, 2018 which has been included in docket for this proposed rulemaking.
\i\ See page 10 of the progress report SIP.
\j\ EPA disapproved Oklahoma's SO2 BART determinations for Units 3 and 4 at the facility and issued a FIP covering these units. Subsequently, DEQ
developed and submitted, and EPA approved, a revision to the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, which replaced the FIP as it related to EPA's SO2 BART
requirements for Units 3 and 4, as well as revised Oklahoma's original NOX BART requirements for Units 3 and 4 (79 FR 12954, March 3,2014).
\k\ See page 12 of the progress report SIP.
\l\ See page 13 of the progress report SIP.
\m\ See pages 10-11 of the progress report SIP.
b. Other Oklahoma Control Measures
In its original 2010 regional haze plan, ODEQ cited various air
quality rules and programs as part of its long-term strategy for
addressing the visibility impairment at WMWA. These efforts include
comprehensive permitting, compliance and enforcement programs, an
emissions inventory system, and a state-wide ambient air monitoring
network.
The progress report states that ODEQ:
Operates a robust permitting program that addresses both
major and minor source facilities. Regular inspections are performed so
as to ensure compliance with all permit requirements, applicable
statutes, rules and regulations. Additionally, ODEQ's permitting
program incorporates new source performance standards (NSPS) and
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) via
its permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs.
Addresses visibility impairment for new or modified major
stationary sources via its Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Requirements for Attainment Areas permitting process.\24\ The PSD
permitting rules limit the establishment of air pollution sources which
may contribute to visibility impairment and other air pollution
problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ OAC 252:100, Subchapter 8, Part 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11716]]
Addresses violations of its air-related environmental
rules by actively pursuing compliance and enforcement actions as
appropriate in its ongoing efforts to preserve air quality in the state
and surrounding areas. In doing so, these actions also have the added
effect of reducing emissions that contribute to visibility impairment
at WMWA (and other nearby mandatory Class I areas).
Relies upon federal regulations on new motor vehicles to
limit air pollutant emissions from on-road mobile sources. These
federal standards result in emission reductions of PM, O3
precursors, and non-methane organic compounds. The State anticipates
that based on historical trends, the slow decline in motor-vehicle
emissions are likely to continue in the future.
Intends to consider any future Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR)-related \25\ reductions and their effects in any
succeeding SIP revision for regional haze. EPA's ongoing updates to
CSAPR to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) may lead to additional reductions
in emissions that contribute to visibility impairment from sources in
Oklahoma, Texas, and various other upwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ CSAPR, as originally promulgated, required 28 eastern
states to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to pollution
from O3 and PM2.5 in other states. The rule
requires reductions in O3 season NOX emissions
that crossed state lines for states under the O3
requirements, and reductions in annual SO2 and
NOX emissions for states under the PM2.5
requirements. To assure emissions reductions, the EPA promulgated
FIPs for each of the states covered by the rule. The EPA set
pollution limits (emission budget) for each state covered by CSAPR.
Allowances are allocated to affected sources based on these state
emission budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted efforts to address controlled and open-burning
practices within the state:
[cir] In 2013, Oklahoma adopted a voluntary Smoke Management Plan
(SMP) \26\ to address agriculture and forestry smoke.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See the Oklahoma Smoke Management Plan (February 28, 2013).
Recognizing the benefits of prescribed and wildland fires to forest
management, wildlife management, and agriculture, the SMP was
developed by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and
Forestry (ODAFF) and ODEQ in cooperation with federal and private
stakeholders in an effort to mitigate smoke emissions from
prescribed and wildland fires.
\27\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires Oklahoma to consider
smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and
forestry management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] ODEQ also revised its open-burning rules,\28\ restricting its
use in certain land-clearing operations for several metropolitan
counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See OAC 252:100-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the State has made various other updates and
modifications to its air quality rules and regulations, which it
contends will produce indirect benefits for visibility. These include:
Incorporation by reference of the latest changes and
additions to the federal NSPSs and NESHAPs,
Updates to minor-facility and major-source permitting
requirements, and
Updates to OAC 252:100, Subchapter 31, Control of Emission
of Sulfur Compounds.
Subsequently, since the aforementioned, additional existing control
measures also address some of the same emissions that contribute to
regional haze and visibility impairment at Class I areas, they are
anticipated to have a positive effect on the visibility at WMWA.
c. Additional Air Pollution Reductions
Nationally, there have been several regulatory and economic
developments which resulted in reduced emissions of visibility
impairing pollutants since the preparation of the initial Oklahoma SIP
revision for regional haze. In the progress report SIP, ODEQ discusses
the anticipated benefit from efforts designed to meet new NAAQS
standards that have been established since the 2010 Regional Haze
submittal. Acknowledging the recent trend towards the use of cleaner
fuels for many industrial operations and particularly for EGUs, ODEQ's
progress report indicates that the resulting lower emissions,
particularly of SO2, would also equate to progress towards
the goal of natural visibility conditions at WMWA. Additionally, ODEQ
cited the potential impacts of ongoing emissions reductions in multiple
pollutants resulting from the EPA's 2013 mercury and air toxics
standards (a.k.a. the ``MATS'' rule), as further contributing to
visibility improvement. ODEQ did not perform any technical analyses to
quantify the visibility benefits of these developments in its progress
report, although it acknowledges that they likely contributed
considerably to observed visibility improvement for the state.
EPA proposes to find that Oklahoma has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State adequately
described the status of the implementation of all measures included in
the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for
mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.
2. Emissions Reductions
In its progress report, ODEQ presents emissions data showing
emission trends and reductions due to controls. The State identified
Sulfureous Particulate (sulfate), Nitrate Particulate (nitrate), and
Organic Carbonaceous Particulate (organic carbon (OC)) as the three
largest contributors to visibility impairment at Oklahoma's WMWA Class
I area \29\ for the first implementation period for regional haze. Many
of the sources that produce these visibility-impairing pollutants in
Oklahoma are anthropogenic in nature and are controllable. In 2002,
point sources emitted 87.5 percent of Oklahoma SO2 emissions
and 31.6 percent of Oklahoma NOX emissions.\30\ Emissions
from Oklahoma sources contributed to 13.25 percent of the overall
visibility impairment \31\ in Oklahoma's WMWA Class I area. EGUs
accounted for 65 percent of the total Oklahoma SO2 emissions
\32\ and 17 percent of the total Oklahoma NOX emissions.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See Table 5-1 from the progress report SIP (September 2016)
and Table V-8 of the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
(February 2010).
\30\ See Table IV-1 of the Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (February 2010).
\31\ See Table V-7 of the Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (February 2010).
\32\ See Table IV-3 of the Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (February 2010).
\33\ See Table IV-5 of the Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (February 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the emission data submitted by the State, the State
reported point source emission data for NOX and
SO2 for the 2002 baseline year and 2011 (the latest official
National Emissions Inventory (NEI)-Oklahoma emissions inventory data
available at the time the progress report was submitted).\34\ The data
presented does not reflect any emission reductions from BART-eligible
sources due to BART limits, since the six required sources in question
had yet to install their respective BART control measures (see Table 1
above). Additionally, the State provided projected emissions data for
2018. Overall point source emissions of NOX increased
slightly from 2002 to 2011, while SO2 point source emissions
decreased by approximately 30,000 tons per year over the same period.
EPA reviewed additional, more recent EGU emissions data and, even
without emission reductions from all BART limits, the available EGU
emissions data through 2017 show large reductions from the 2002
baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Table 5-2 in the Oklahoma progress report (page 20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 below, provided by the EPA to evaluate EGU emissions post-
2011, shows that NOX and SO2 EGU point source
emissions have decreased during the 2011 to 2017 time-period. In 2017,
the SO2 emissions were 50,270 tpy lower than the 2011 annual
levels while
[[Page 11717]]
NOX emissions were 56,786 tpy lower. These results represent
an additional 54 percent reduction in SO2 emissions and 73
percent reduction in NOX emissions from EGUs since 2011.
Overall, from the 2002 baseline year, EGU SO2 emissions have
reduced by 60 percent and EGU NOX emissions have reduced by
75 percent.
Table 2--Annual NOX and SO2 Emissions From EGU Point Sources in Oklahoma *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emission SO2 Emission
Year NOX (tons) SO2 (tons) Heat input rate (lb/ rate (lb/
(MMBtu) MMBtu) MMBtu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................ 85,999 106,318 553,566,474 0.311 0.384
2003............................ 86,502 109,803 574,470,072 0.301 0.382
2004............................ 78,217 100,098 558,112,281 0.280 0.359
2005............................ 85,019 103,985 606,763,914 0.280 0.343
2006............................ 82,810 106,091 620,400,705 0.267 0.342
2007............................ 76,529 100,111 622,537,676 0.246 0.322
2008............................ 79,989 101,320 647,315,009 0.247 0.313
2009............................ 73,357 95,307 626,058,610 0.234 0.304
2010............................ 71,439 85,135 603,295,697 0.237 0.282
2011............................ 77,983 92,351 628,579,599 0.248 0.294
2012............................ 64,338 77,128 619,284,535 0.208 0.249
2013............................ 49,178 74,632 558,628,131 0.176 0.267
2014............................ 37,562 72,855 519,423,413 0.145 0.281
2015............................ 28,097 61,971 531,490,156 0.106 0.233
2016............................ 24,895 49,485 502,603,800 0.099 0.197
2017............................ 21,197 42,081 430,070,391 0.099 0.196
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: U.S. EPA Clean Air Market Division www.epa.gov/airmarkt/.
A more-detailed breakdown of the distribution of emission trends
for each contributing pollutant species from all sources can be seen in
Section 4. Emission Tracking, of this proposed action.
The EPA's NEI total point source data for Oklahoma in Table 3 shows
that reported PM emissions remained relatively consistent from their
NEI baseline totals for the first implementation period. Total 2014
NOX and SO2 point sources emissions are lower
than the 2002 baseline emission levels.
Table 3--NEI Total Point Source Emission Data for Oklahoma for 2002-2014 \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tpy)
Year \b\ NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM10 (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................ 163,417 150,388 7,106 12,744
2005............................................ 100,681 113,344 3,551 7,044
2008............................................ 142,157 137,047 6,638 14,390
2011............................................ 161,396 118,921 7,557 13,736
2014............................................ 122,346 102,524 6,764 11,225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database for point sources only.
b Comprehensive NEI data is generated every three years.
In addition to the above reductions, ODEQ's progress report
mentions that it anticipates some additional future reductions in
SO2 and NOX emissions due to more stringent CSAPR
budgets that apply to EGUs in Texas and most eastern states.\35\ These
emissions contribute to or are precursors for the formation of
sulfurous and nitrate PM, which together comprise the majority of haze
affecting the WMWA. Also, as mentioned earlier, BART controls at
Oklahoma-based EGUs (OG&E's Muskogee and Sooner plants had until
January 2019 to complete their installation of BART controls per the
recent FIP) are also expected to result in further haze-forming
emissions reductions from within the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Since the submission of Oklahoma's Progress Report, the
CSAPR SO2 budget for Texas has been replaced by the Texas
Intrastate Regional Haze Bart-alternative SO2 trading
program--EPA finalized its determination that the intrastate trading
program is an appropriate SO2 BART alternative for EGUs
in Texas (see 82 FR 48324 October 17, 2017 and 83 FR 43586, August
27, 2018). Any additional future reductions in SO2
attributed to Texas would be the result of said trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that the State adequately addressed
the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g) with its summary of emission
reductions of visibility-impairing pollutants. Overall, the State
demonstrated the emission reductions achieved for visibility-impairing
pollutants in the State for the first implementation period. Emissions
of SO2, NOX, and PM, the main contributors to
regional haze in Oklahoma, have all been decreasing. Even before
additional BART limits and lower CSAPR budgets have been fully
implemented, the SO2 and NOX haze pollutant
precursors from EGU point sources in the State have decreased from the
baseline levels in 2002. In addition, with the promulgation of the
CSAPR Update in September of 2016, which included Oklahoma and Texas
EGUs within the ozone-season NOX budget trading program and
applied in 20 other eastern states, reduced NOX emissions
were required beginning in the 2017 ozone season.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See 81 FR 74506 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Visibility Conditions
In their progress report, ODEQ provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I area within Oklahoma's borders. The progress
report addressed current visibility conditions,
[[Page 11718]]
the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions (expressed in terms of five-year averaged of
these annual values, with values for the haziest (i.e., most impaired),
and clearest (i.e., least impaired) days), and the change in visibility
impairment.
Oklahoma's progress report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for WMWA. Additionally, EPA has obtained and examined
visibility data for more recent five-year time periods from the IMPROVE
network's monitoring data. Table 4, below, shows the visibility
conditions from 2002-16, compared to the natural/baseline visibility
conditions in deciviews (dv).
Table 4--IMPROVE Visibility Trends for the Wichita Mountains WIMO1 Monitor *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural
Annual average Natural Annual average condition haze
Year haze index, condition haze haze index, index,
haziest days index, haziest clearest days clearest days
(dv) days (dv) (dv) (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................ 23.6 .............. 9.8 ..............
2003............................................ 23.6 .............. 10 ..............
2004............................................ 24.2 .............. 9.6 ..............
2005............................................ 25.7 7.5 10.6 3
2006............................................ 21.8 .............. 9.7 ..............
2007............................................ 22.8 .............. 9.3 ..............
2008............................................ 21.6 .............. 9.8 ..............
2010............................................ 21.8 .............. 9.2 ..............
2011............................................ 22.9 .............. 10.3 ..............
2012............................................ 20.2 .............. 8.9 ..............
2013............................................ 20.3 .............. 8.4 ..............
2014............................................ 21.2 .............. 9.3 ..............
2015............................................ 18.8 .............. 8.5 ..............
2016............................................ 17.2 .............. 8.1 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See the IMPROVE Visibility Trend Charts for the Wichita Mountains WIMO1 monitor: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv-summaries/.
Although visibility conditions have varied from year to year, Table
6-8 of the progress report shows that WMWA has displayed an overall
improvement in visibility since 2001. At the time the progress report
was produced, WMWA showed improved visibility when comparing the 2000
to 2004 baseline period to the 2009 to 2013 visibility period (the most
recent five-year average presented in ODEQ's progress report) during
the most impaired days of the first implementation period. The progress
report's most recent five-year average of 21.25 dv \37\ shows that as
of 2013, WMWA met the 2010 regional haze SIP RPGs for the twenty
percent most impaired days.\38\ The WMWA Class I area also showed
improvement from the 2000 to 2004 baseline on the twenty percent least
impaired days for the first implementation period. Visibility
conditions at WMWA had improved nearly enough to meet the RPG for 2018
for the best quintile of days,\39\ with a five-year average of 9.25
dv.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See Table 6-8 on pages 27-28 of the progress report.
\38\ In the 2010 Regional Haze SIP, WMWA had a visibility
impairment reduction goal of 2.33 dv (See Table IX-3, pg. 107) to
reach a RPG of 21.47 dv by 2018 for ``worst days'' (See Table IX-4,
pg. 109).
\39\ In the 2010 Regional Haze SIP, WMWA had a RPG of 9.23 dv by
2018 for ``best days'' (page 104). See Table 6-8 (pages 27-28) and
the chart on page 29 of the progress report.
\40\ See Table 6-8 on pages 27-28 of the progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That being said, the 2010 Regional Haze SIP RPGs for the twenty
percent least impaired and most impaired days for WMWA were disapproved
as part of the previously mentioned, EPA FIP of January 2016 and
replaced with revised RPGs developed by EPA. Though the FIP was stayed
at the time the State submitted the progress report SIP, the State
included these revised RPGs (for 2018 standards) of 9.22 dv and 21.33
dv for best and worst quintiles, respectively, in its progress report.
When comparing the 2018 RPGs calculated by EPA in its final action with
the observed five-year visibility trends reported in the State's
progress report, WMWA has exceeded the visibility improvements needed
to meet the goal for the worst quintile days; and was close to meeting
the goal for the best quintile days (9.25 versus 9.22 dv) as of 2013.
IMPROVE's data from 2001-16 demonstrates that visibility for the
haziest/worst days at the Wichita Mountains monitoring site has been
improving at a rate of 0.41 dv/year.\41\ The average visibility for
WMWA on the worst days has been below the 2018 RPGs calculated by EPA
since the 2009-14 five-year period, as seen in Table 5. Most recently,
the 2012-16 period showed the visibility at the Wichita Mountains to be
19.54 dv, 1.79 dv below the EPA calculated 2018 RPGs. We note that the
visibility conditions needed to meet the uniform rate of progress for
2018 is 20.01 dv for the twenty percent most impaired days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring data for
Wichita Mountains: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv-summaries/.
Table 5--Visibility Conditions at WMWA Class I Area for the Twenty Percent Worst Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently
Baseline (2000- (2007-2011) (2008-2012) (2009-2013) (2010-2014) (2011-2015) (2012-2016) 2018 FIP- available data
Class I area 2004) (dv) \a\ (dv) \a\ (dv) \a\ (dv) \b\ (dv) \b\ (dv) \b\ (dv) revised RPGs v. baseline
(dv) data (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area............... 23.83 22.26 21.61 21.25 21.28 20.68 19.54 21.33 -2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 4-yr average b/c there was no available data for 2009.
b Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring data for Wichita Mountains.
[[Page 11719]]
IMPROVE's clearest/best days monitoring data from 2001 to 2016
indicates that the haze index values at the WMWA monitor has been
declining at a rate of 0.12 dv/year.\42\ The average visibility for
WMWA on the clearest of days has been below the 2018 RPGs calculated by
EPA since the 2010 to 2015 five-year period as seen in Table 6. Most
recently, the 2012 to 2016 period showed the best days' visibility at
the Wichita Mountains to be 0.58 dv below the 2018 RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring data for
Wichita Mountains: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/aqrv-summaries/.
Table 6--Visibility Conditions at WMWA Class I Area for the Twenty Percent Best Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently
Baseline (2000- (2007-2011) (2008-2012) (2009-2013) (2010-2014) (2011-2015) (2012-2016) 2018 FIP- available data
Class I area 2004) (dv) \a\ (dv) \a\ (dv) \a\ (dv) \b\ (dv) \b\ (dv) \b\ (dv) revised RPGs v. baseline
(dv) data (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area............... 9.92 9.80 9.65 9.25 9.22 9.08 8.64 9.22 -1.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a 4-yr average b/c there was no available data for 2009.
b Source: IMPROVE Visibility Trend monitoring data for Wichita Mountains.
EPA proposes to conclude that Oklahoma has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State provided baseline visibility
conditions (2000 to 2004), current conditions based on the most
recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of
progress report development, the difference between these current sets
of visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the
change in visibility impairment from 2009-13. The WMWA has shown
improved visibility for the most impaired and least impaired days since
2001 and is projected to continue to improve with additional future
emission reductions due to BART and other measures.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its progress report SIP, the State presents NEI emission
inventories for the 2002 baseline year and 2011, as well as projected
inventories for 2018.\43\ The pollutants inventoried include
SO2, NOX, NH3, VOC, PM2.5
(i.e., fine particulates), and PM10-PM2.5 (i.e.,
coarse particulates). The inventories were categorized for all major
visibility-impairing pollutants under biogenic and major anthropogenic
source groupings. The anthropogenic source categorization included on
and non-road mobile sources; point sources; and area sources. The 2011
NEI inventory was the latest comprehensive inventory available at the
time the State prepared its progress report SIP revision in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Emission development and air quality modeling were
performed by the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP)
in support of SIP development in the central states region for 2002
and projected 2018 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions in emissions from the baseline year to 2011 occurred in
every pollutant with the exception of VOCs and coarse particulates,
which increased by 16 percent and 79 percent respectively. The dramatic
increase in coarse particulates can be attributed to drought conditions
which developed in late 2010 and intensified in 2011 for the WMWA. The
three-month period of June through August of 2011 ranked as the
``hottest [summer] ever recorded in any state.'' \44\ ODEQ asserts that
the dry conditions and intense heat resulted in an increase in coarse
PM from the resulting dust storms.\45\ Total NOX and
SO2 emissions were reduced by 54,211 and 46,372 tpy, with
the largest reductions of NOX being realized from the on-
road and non-road mobile sources categories; and two thirds of the
SO2 reductions attributed to point sources. \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See page 18, Section 4.4 of the progress report.
\45\ Ibid.
\46\ See Table 5-2 (page 20) of the progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison purposes, EPA provides additional 2008 and 2014 NEI
data.\47\ A breakdown of the total emissions for the state can be seen
below in Table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System
(EIS) Gateway database for total state emissions.
Table 7--Comparison of Total State Emissions to CENRAP 2018 Projections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 State
reported 2008 NEI total 2011 NEI total 2014 NEI total CENRAP 2018
Pollutant species baseline emissions emissions emissions projections
emissions (tpy) * (tpy) (tpy) * (tpy)
(tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................. 170,021 148,710 123,649 109,210 119,776
NOX............................. 502,122 463,951 447,911 385,782 369,248
NH3............................. 143,179 112,650 112,230 112,863 182,605
VOCs............................ 1,375,653 1,356,355 1,600,734 1,505,886 1,581,788
PM2.5........................... 124,954 168,554 103,638 133,381 142,252
PM10............................ 438,852 809,223 666,672 488,258 429,945
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Provided by the EPA from the EIS gateway database
In its 2010 Regional Haze SIP, ODEQ determined that the primary
visibility-impairing pollutants in Oklahoma include SO2,
NOX, and PM (both PM10 and 2.5).
Oklahoma provides in its progress report SIP a comparison of the
inventories for all potential visibility-impairing pollutants for 2002
(the baseline year), recent NEI data for 2011, and CENRAP-projected
data for 2018.\48\ This span is sufficiently representative of emission
levels for the purpose of EPA's review of the progress report. A
comparison of the data for these years shows that total state emissions
have decreased for all of the visibility-impairing pollutants except
for VOCs and PM10, which had slight to modest increases (14%
and 34%) over 2008, respectively. VOC emissions increased by 225,081
tpy since 2002, but CENRAP
[[Page 11720]]
modeling has demonstrated that anthropogenic VOCs do not significantly
impair visibility at WMWA. Total PM10 levels appear to have
spiked briefly after 2002 and then began to steadily decline. More
recently available 2014 NEI data shows that, other than PM10
levels, the emissions inventory for all pollutants is currently below
the CENRAP 2018 Projections. Despite not already having met the 2018
projections, Oklahoma's PM10 emissions declined nearly 40
percent from 2008 levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Page 20 of the progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projected 2018 CENRAP data also showed that there is an
anticipated overall downward trend in SO2, and
NOX. The decrease in SO2 is especially noteworthy
as sulfurous emissions contribute the most to visibility impairment at
WMWA. (Nitrate particulate matter forms from NOX emissions
but occurs predominantly during the winter months; whereas sulfurous
aerosol comprises the plurality during the rest of the year.) \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Page 66 of the 2010 Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the limiting role of NOX and SO2
on PM2.5-formation, and the uncertainties in assessing the
effect of NH3 emission reductions on visibility, Oklahoma
does not consider ammonia among the visibility-impairing
pollutants.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Page 69 of the 2010 Regional Haze SIP. EPA agreed with
Oklahoma's decision to exclude ammonia in our December 2011 final
rile. 76 FR 81727, 81754 (December 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considered as a whole, the above indicates that the main
precursors that cause the formation of haze and visibility impairment
in Oklahoma are being reduced.
Table 8 below shows the inventoried categories that were the
driving factors behind the total emission trends. Nearly every category
across the inventory showed emission decreases for each pollutant. The
total emissions change for each pollutant, except NH3 and
VOCs, showed a reduction from 2008 to 2014. The trends were consistent
with the emission trends shown in section II, A, 2 of this proposed
action, which also showed the latest updates for EGUs.
Table 8--2014 Emission Data (tpy) and the Category Changes Since 2008 for Oklahoma \*\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NH3 VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural/Biogenic........ 37,854........... 0................ 199,471.......... 38,845........... 95,232........... 1,041,372
(-5,637)......... (+32,530)........ (+5,457)......... (-2,142)......... (+180,237)
Area/Non-point............... 138,795.......... 1,759............ 421,375.......... 79,251........... 100,409.......... 1,283,217
(-8,375)......... (-2,976)......... (-305,703)....... (-23,170)........ (+2,166)......... (+173,338)
Fires........................ 9,707............ 4,362............ 56,858........... 47,146........... 11,798........... 111,238
(-1,661)......... (-901)........... (-4,145)......... (-4,819)......... (+2,633)......... (-21,782)
Fugitive Dust................ 0................ 0................ 20,292........... 2,029............ 0................ 0
(-11,924)........ (-1,193).........
Road Dust.................... 0................ 0................ 175,729.......... 19,815........... 0................ 0
(-329,400)....... (-33,262)........
Non-road Mobile.............. 20,462........... 44............... 2,004............ 1,912............ 31............... 20,885
(-7,180)......... (-472)........... (-703)........... (-677)........... (+2)............. (-10,011)
On-road Mobile............... 92,071........... 450.............. 4,986............ 2,834............ 1,600............ 42,735
(-43,267)........ (-757)........... (-661)........... (-1,519)......... (-555)........... (-14,225)
Point Sources................ 126,000.......... 102,846.......... 11,486........... 8,361............ 3,292............ 50,777
(-17,071)........ (-34,270)........ (-3,056)......... (-619)........... (+233)........... (+23,871)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emission Change.... -83,191.......... -39,376.......... -623,062......... -59,802.......... +2,337........... +331,428
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate an increase (+) or decrease (-) in emissions from 2008.
* As reported in the online EPA Emissions Inventory System (EIS) Gateway database.
EPA is proposing to find that the State adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding emissions tracking because the
State compared the most recent updated emission inventory data for the
key visibility impairing pollutants across Oklahoma available at the
time of progress report development with the baseline emissions used in
the modeling for the regional haze plan. The results showed that the
emissions from SO2, NOX, and PM, the main
contributors of regional haze in Oklahoma, have all been decreasing
since 2008. The State's analysis relied on the latest emissions data
available to them at the time (2002 to 2011); \51\ and the EPA provided
additional updates for 2008 and 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for
emission inventory changes is defined as the time period since the
current regional haze SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time
lag in developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once
quality-assured emissions data becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
Oklahoma also provided an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that could limit or
impede reasonable progress. Data presented in the State's progress
report \52\ indicates that there were no significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions that have limited or impeded progress in
reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. Visibility
Conditions as the WMWA Class I area demonstrated overall downward
trends in Haze Index values for both its best (i.e., ``clearest'') and
worst (i.e., ``haziest'') days. EPA proposes to agree with Oklahoma's
conclusion that there have been no significant changes in emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants which have limited or impeded progress
in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas
impacted by the State's sources. Although Oklahoma continues to
experience visibility impacts from sources outside the State that
affect the WMWA Class I area,\53\ this progress report demonstrates
that, the State remains on track to meet both its original and the EPA-
determined 2018 RPGs for the Class I area in Oklahoma. EPA is not
evaluating at this time whether existing trends in emissions are
sufficient, or could impede or limit progress, with respect to any
future RPGs for subsequent planning periods for Class I areas in
Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See page 20 of the progress report.
\53\ Oklahoma's initial SIP Revision for Regional Haze
documented that the majority of visibility impairment at the Wichita
Mountains results from emissions generated in Texas. EPA's
examination and review of Oklahoma's reasonable progress
consultation with Texas determined that additional emissions
reductions from Texas were necessary to address visibility
impairment at WMWA for the first implementation period ending in
2018, and issued a FIP for Texas to that effect, requiring
additional emissions reductions from eight coal-fired electric power
plants (See 81 FR 295). This action was subsequently stayed and
later remanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11721]]
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
The State concludes that it is on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for
the WMWA based on the trends in visibility and emissions presented in
its progress report. In its progress report SIP submittal, the State
assesses the 2010 SIP elements and strategies and determines that,
based upon emission trends and monitor data, they were sufficient to
enable Oklahoma to meet all the originally established RPGs.\54\ The
state notes that the visibility at the WMWA has improved sufficiently
to meet the originally established RPGs for 2018 during 2009-2013 for
the 20% worst days and they anticipate further improvement in
visibility as additional emission reductions occur due to
implementation of BART controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Note that states don't necessarily need to refer to
specific RPGs to meet the requirements of 51.308(g)(6). If they're
currently achieving more reductions than they anticipated when they
developed their SIP, this demonstrates that they're on track to
ensure RP in class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evaluation set forth by the State also shows that it is meeting
the revised RPGs that EPA calculated in its currently stayed January
2016 FIP action for Texas and Oklahoma.\55\ In its progress report,
Oklahoma shows it was achieving greater visibility improvements than
the EPA-calculated RPGs at WMWA for the worst quintile of days.\56\
Based on more recently available monitored data, the State has also
reached its 2018 goals for the best quintile days as well. We note that
the recent monitored data showing visibility improvements at WMWA also
meet the uniform rate of progress for 2018 of 20.01 dv for the twenty
percent most impaired days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ On March 18, 2016, Texas filed a request for a stay of the
FIP. On July 15, 2016, the court issued a stay of the FIP, including
the emission control requirements. ODEQ notes that the RPG at WMWA
presumably depends on the outcome of this litigation.
\56\ See Table 6-8 on pages 27 to 28 of the progress report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that Oklahoma has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment. In
its progress report SIP, Oklahoma describes the improving visibility
trends using data from the IMPROVE network and the downward emissions
trends in NOX and SO2 emissions in the State.
These trends support the State's determination that its regional haze
plan is sufficient to meet the 2018 RPGs for Class I areas within the
State. Oklahoma also notes that additional improvement in visibility
conditions are anticipated in the future after installation of all
controls required to meet BART (see Table 1).
EPA's modeling data used to develop the previously mentioned FIP
and SIP revisions for Oklahoma's subject-to-BART EGU sources, also
demonstrated that the potential visibility impacts for Class I areas
outside the state would be significantly reduced by implementation of
the associated revised BART controls/limits.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Comments on Modeling section, 76 FR 81738-81739
(December 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the effect of Oklahoma's emissions on other states
with Class I areas, Oklahoma acknowledges the possible impact of its
sources on Arkansas' Class I areas, Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo
Wilderness Areas, but concludes that the impact on visibility
conditions in those areas is negligible.\58\ ODEQ could not identify
any emissions from within the State that either prevented or inhibited
reasonable progress at Class I areas outside the State, nor had they
(ODEQ) been contacted any other state to assert such an interstate-
transport impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ODEQ noted in its progress report SIP revision (on page 30)
that, ``Although it is rare that emissions from Oklahoma impact the
Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas in Arkansas due to
the location of large pollutant emitting sources in Oklahoma
combined with the prevailing wind direction and topographical setup
along the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, DEQ will continue to surveil
these and other necessary Class I areas in other states.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In support of this assertion, we submit that Arkansas' Class I
areas have seen marked improvement in visibility since the start of
regional haze monitoring. Based on Arkansas' respective IMPROVE data,
the haze index for the 20 percent worst days of visibility at both the
Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas have been steadily
improving as a result of reduced emissions within Arkansas and because
of broader industrial and energy trends in other states. EPA's review
of recent monitoring data \59\ from Arkansas' Class I areas indicates
that both Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo are well on track for
demonstrating improved visibility for the most impaired and least
impaired days since 2001.\60\ Based on the five-year rolling averages,
both wilderness areas are not only on schedule but have also
outperformed their stricter revised 2018 RPGs for the twenty percent
worst days \61\ (22.47 and 22.51 dv; See Table 9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See RPG Calculation Data Sheets, sip-rev-rpg-calcs.xlsx and
visibility-progress.xlsx provided at https://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/planning/sip/regional-haze.aspx.
\60\ See figures 2 to 9 and tables 5 to 8 (pages 28 to 39) of
the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2 and PM SIP revision.
\61\ See page 54 of the Arkansas Regional Haze SO2
and PM SIP revision.
Table 9--Visibility Conditions at Arkansas Class I Areas for Twenty Percent Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2000-
Class I area 2004) (dv) (2007-2011) (2008-2012) (2009-2013) (2010-2014) 2018 Revised
(dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) RPGs (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caney Creek Wilderness.................................. 26.36 22.99 22.69 22.23 21.83 22.47
Upper Buffalo Wilderness................................ 26.27 24.15 22.99 22.16 21.63 22.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above, the State's assertion that sources in Oklahoma
are not interfering with the achievement of any other neighboring
state's RPGs for their respective Class I areas for the first planning
period appears valid.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ In its 2011 SIP submittal, see 76 FR 64186 at 64196
(October 17, 2011), Arkansas concluded that the impact from Oklahoma
sources (among other states) was non-impactful: ``ADEQ determined
that additional emissions reductions from other States are not
necessary to address visibility impairment at Caney Creek and the
Upper Buffalo for the first implementation period ending in 2018,
and all states participating in its consultations agreed with
this.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to approve Oklahoma's finding that the elements
and strategies in its implementation plan are sufficient to achieve the
RPGs for the WMWA Class I area in the State and for any Class I areas
in nearby states potentially impacted by sources in the State.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
The monitoring strategy for regional haze in Oklahoma relies upon
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) regional haze monitoring network. IMPROVE
provides
[[Page 11722]]
a long-term record for tracking visibility improvement or degradation.
Oklahoma currently relies on data collected through the IMPROVE network
to satisfy the regional haze monitoring requirement as specified in 40
CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule. In its progress report SIP,
Oklahoma summarizes the existing IMPROVE monitoring network and its
intended continued reliance on it for future visibility planning.
Measurements at the Wichita Mountains monitoring site began in March
2001 and were compiled via the IMPROVE ``WIMO1'' monitor.\63\ The
IMPROVE program makes data available on the internet and submits it to
EPA's air quality system. For the progress report, Oklahoma evaluates
its use of the IMPROVE monitoring network and found it to be
satisfactory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge personnel operate and
maintain the IMPROVE particulate sampler and are responsible for
disseminating and submitting the collected data (See Oklahoma's
initial regional haze SIP revision, pg. 8.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the IMPROVE
monitoring network. Oklahoma also explained the importance of the
IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking visibility trends at its Class
I area and identified that it did not anticipate any changes to its
reliance on the network for visibility assessments. EPA proposes to
find that Oklahoma has adequately addressed the applicable provisions
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding monitoring strategy because the State
reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy and determined that no
further modifications to the strategy are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Implementation Plan
In its progress report SIP, Oklahoma submits a negative declaration
to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or emissions
reductions in Oklahoma beyond those already in place and those to be
implemented by 2018 according to Oklahoma's regional haze plan.
Oklahoma determined that the current version of its regional haze plan
requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the
2018 RPGs for Class I areas affected by the State's sources. The basis
for the State's declaration is the findings from the progress report
SIP which conclude that the control measures in Oklahoma's regional
haze plan are on track to meet their implementation schedules and the
reduction of SO2, NOX and PM emissions from
subject to BART EGUs in Oklahoma continues to be the appropriate
strategy for improvement of visibility in Oklahoma's WMWA Class I area.
Additional improvements in visibility are expected to continue, as at
the time of submission for the progress report, the major emitting
facilities in Oklahoma had not yet installed their respective BART
controls.
Review of more recent emissions and visibility data shows that EGU
SO2 and NOX emissions dropped from 2002 to 2017
by 64,802 and 64,237 tons, respectively; and the actual change in
visibility observed/reported via its IMPROVE monitor through 2016 for
the WMWA Class I area is better \64\ than what the State predicted for
2016 and is currently exceeding the uniform rate of progress.\65\ EPA
proposes to conclude that Oklahoma has adequately addressed 40 CFR
51.308(h) because the visibility trends at the WMWA Class I area and at
Class I areas outside the State potentially impacted by sources within
Oklahoma and the emissions trends of the largest emitters of
visibility-impairing pollutants in the State indicate that the relevant
RPGs will be met; and support the State's determination of the adequacy
of its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ AQRV Summary data for the WIMO 1 monitor at WMWA indicates
that the 2017 observed visibility was 17.23 dv--4.1 dv lower than
the FIP-revised 2018 RPG for the haziest of days.
\65\ See the Visibility Impairment Projections graph on page 29
of the progress report SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i), the state must provide the
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation, at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearings on an implementation plan (or plan
revision). The state must also include a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. ODEQ shared its draft
progress report with the FLMs on April 11, 2016; and notified them of
the associated public review comment period on August 2, 2016 and of
the opportunity to request a public hearing (for September 6, 2016).
The FLM comments and Oklahoma's responses are presented in Appendix II
of the progress report.
The EPA proposes to find that Oklahoma has addressed the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i). Oklahoma provided a 60-day period for
the FLMs to comment on the progress report, which was at least 60 days
before seeking public comments, and provides a summary of these
comments and responses to these comments in the progress report.
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the State of Oklahoma regional haze
five-year progress report SIP revision (submitted September 28, 2016)
as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements under the CAA and
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h) and (i). Because the SIP and FIP
will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions relied upon by Oklahoma and other states in setting their
reasonable progress goals, EPA is proposing to approve Oklahoma's
finding that there is no need for revision of the existing
implementation plan to achieve the reasonable progress goals for the
Class I areas in Oklahoma and in nearby states impacted by Oklahoma
sources.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action proposes to approve a State's determination that their
current regional haze plan is meeting federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. This
proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
[[Page 11723]]
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Best Available
Retrofit Technology, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Regional haze, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 2019.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-05860 Filed 3-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P