Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Second Period Regional Haze Plan, 67341-67368 [2024-18495]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(3) * * * Paragraphs (g)(3)(ii) and (iii)
and (g)(4)(iii) of this section apply to
taxable years of controlled foreign
corporations ending on or after [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
For taxable years of controlled foreign
corporations ending before [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], see
§ 1.954–2(g)(3)(ii) and (iii) and (g)(4)(iii)
as in effect and contained in 26 CFR
part 1, as revised April 1, 2024.
Par. 3. Section 1.988–7, as proposed
to be added at 82 FR 60143 (December
19, 2017), is amended by adding
paragraphs (c) through (e) to read as
follows:
§ 1.988–7 Election to mark-to-market
foreign currency gain or loss on section 988
transactions.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Time and manner of election—(1)
In general. Except as otherwise
provided in this paragraph (c), a
taxpayer makes the election under
paragraph (a) of this section by filing a
statement that clearly indicates that the
election has been made with the
taxpayer’s timely-filed (excluding
extensions) original Federal income tax
return for the taxable year immediately
preceding the year for which the
election is made.
(2) New taxpayers. In the case of a
taxpayer for which no Federal income
tax return was required to be filed for
the taxable year immediately preceding
the year for which the election is made,
the taxpayer makes the election under
paragraph (a) of this section by
preparing a statement that clearly
indicates the election has been made
and:
(i) Placing the statement in the
taxpayer’s books and records by no later
than 2 months and 15 days after the first
day of the year for which the election
is made; and
(ii) Filing the statement with the
taxpayer’s original Federal income tax
return for the taxable year for which the
election is made.
(3) Elections on behalf of CFCs. In the
case of a controlled foreign corporation,
the controlling United States
shareholders (as defined in § 1.964–
1(c)(5)(i)) make the election under
paragraph (a) of this section on behalf of
the controlled foreign corporation by
preparing a statement that clearly
indicates the election has been made
and:
(i) Placing the statement in the
controlled foreign corporation’s books
and records by no later than 2 months
and 15 days after the first day of the
year of the controlled foreign
corporation for which the election is
made; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
(ii) Filing the statement with their
original Federal income tax returns for
the taxable year of the United States
shareholders in which or with which
the taxable year of the controlled foreign
corporation for which the election is
made ends.
(d) Revocation. An election under
paragraph (a) of this section is effective
for the taxable year for which it is made
and all subsequent taxable years unless
the election is revoked with the consent
of the Commissioner.
(e) Applicability dates. This section
applies to taxable years of taxpayers
ending on or after [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
Paragraph (c)(3) of this section applies
to taxable years of controlled foreign
corporations ending on or after [DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE],
and to taxable years of United States
shareholders in which or with which
the taxable years of those controlled
foreign corporations end.
Heather C. Maloy,
Acting Deputy Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2024–18281 Filed 8–19–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2022–0786; FRL–10405–
01–R4]
Air Plan Approval; North Carolina;
Second Period Regional Haze Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
in part and conditionally approve in
part a regional haze State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Air Quality (DAQ), dated
April 4, 2022 (‘‘Haze Plan’’ or ‘‘2022
Plan’’) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
(RHR) for the regional haze program’s
second planning period. North
Carolina’s 2022 SIP submission
addresses the requirement that states
must periodically revise their long-term
strategies for making reasonable
progress toward the national goal of
preventing any future, and remedying
any existing, anthropogenic impairment
of visibility, including regional haze, in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. The
SIP submission also addresses other
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67341
applicable requirements for the second
planning period of the regional haze
program. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of
the Act.
Written comments must be
received on or before September 19,
2024.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2022–0786, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or 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 discussion of all points
you wish to make. 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 system). For
additional submission methods, 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.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Notarianni, Multi-Air Pollutant
Coordination Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Ms. Notarianni can be reached via
telephone at (404) 562–9031 or
electronic mail at notarianni.michele@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for
the Second Planning Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and
Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to
Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
(URP)
C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional
Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
67342
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State
Implementation Plan Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Toward the RPGs
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager (FLM) Coordination
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of North Carolina’s
Regional Haze Submission for the
Second Planning Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and
Natural Visibility Conditions; Progress to
Date; and the URP
C. LTS for Regional Haze
D. RPGs
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Toward the RPGs
G. Requirements for State and FLM
Coordination
H. Environmental Justice (EJ)
Considerations
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
On April 4, 2022, the North Carolina
DAQ submitted a revision to its SIP to
address regional haze for the second
planning period. DAQ made this SIP
submission to satisfy the requirements
of the CAA’s regional haze program
pursuant to CAA sections 169A and
169B and 40 CFR 51.308.1 EPA is
proposing to approve in part and
conditionally approve in part North
Carolina’s Haze Plan. For the reasons
discussed in this document, EPA is
proposing to approve the sections of the
Haze Plan addressing the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), (f)(4) through(6),
and (g)(1) through(5). EPA is proposing
to conditionally approve the sections of
the Haze Plan addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
(f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4) due to
concerns with the legal and practicable
enforceability of certain permit
conditions identified in the Haze Plan
for incorporation into the SIP.
Consistent with CAA section
110(k)(3), EPA may approve in part
portions of the SIP submittal if those
portions meet the all the applicable
requirements. Under CAA section
110(k)(4), EPA may conditionally
approve a SIP revision based on a
commitment from a state to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date
certain, but not later than one year from
the date of conditional approval of the
1 In a letter dated August 15, 2022, EPA found
that North Carolina’s Haze Plan meets the
completeness criteria outlined in 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix V. A completeness determination does
not constitute a finding on the merits of the
submission or whether it meets the relevant criteria
for SIP approval. The August 15, 2022, letter is
included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
plan revision. If the state fails to meet
the commitment within one year of the
final conditional approval, the
conditional approval will be treated as
a disapproval. North Carolina submitted
a letter, dated July 30, 2024,
(‘‘Commitment Letter’’), requesting
partial conditional approval of its Haze
Plan and committing to submit a SIP
revision containing specific enforceable
measures no later than one year from
the effective date of a final conditional
approval action, should EPA finalize
this partial conditional approval as
proposed.2 EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the sections of
the Haze Plan addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
(f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4). These
elements are fully separable from the
elements proposed for partial approval.
If North Carolina meets its commitment
to submit the required SIP revision that
adequately addresses the identified
concerns related to the enforceability of
certain permit conditions by the
specified deadline and EPA approves
the submission, then the conditional
approval will be converted to a full
approval. See Section IV.C.3.b of this
document for a discussion of the
enforceability concerns resulting in the
proposed partial conditional approval
and the commitments in North
Carolina’s Commitment Letter.
II. Background and Requirements for
Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments,
Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
mandatory Class I Federal areas, which
include certain national parks and
wilderness areas.3 CAA 169A. The CAA
establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory class I Federal
areas which impairment results from
manmade air pollution.’’ CAA
169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs
EPA to promulgate regulations to assure
reasonable progress toward meeting this
national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On
December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I
2 The Commitment Letter is in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
3 Areas statutorily designated as 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.
CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas.
The list of areas to which the requirements of the
visibility protection program apply is in 40 CFR
part 81, subpart D.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as
‘‘Class I areas’’) that is ‘‘reasonably
attributable’’ to a single source or small
group of sources. See 45 FR 80084
(December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through
51.307, represented the first phase of
EPA’s efforts to address visibility
impairment. In 1990, Congress added
section 169B to the CAA to further
address visibility impairment,
specifically, impairment from regional
haze. CAA 169B. EPA promulgated the
RHR, codified at 40 CFR 51.308,4 on
July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
These regional haze regulations are a
central component of EPA’s
comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas.
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
anthropogenic sources and activities
which are located across a broad
geographic area and that emit pollutants
that impair visibility. Visibility
impairing pollutants include fine and
coarse particulate matter (PM) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and
their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and ammonia (NH3)). Precursor
pollutants react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (particles
less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
(mm) in diameter, PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment reduces the
perception of clarity and color, as well
as visible distance.5
4 In addition to the generally applicable regional
haze provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, EPA also
promulgated regulations specific to addressing
regional haze visibility impairment in Class I areas
on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The
latter regulations are applicable only for specific
jurisdictions’ regional haze plans submitted no later
than December 17, 2007, and thus, are not relevant
here.
5 There are several ways to measure the amount
of visibility impairment, i.e., haze. One such
measurement is the deciview, which is the
principal metric defined and used by the RHR.
Under many circumstances, a change in one
deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be
the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview
is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the
atmospheric extinction of light, which is the
perceived dimming of light due to its being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the
atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (bext) is a
metric used for expressing visibility and is
measured in inverse megameters (Mm¥1). EPA’s
‘‘Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period’’
(‘‘2019 Guidance’’) offers the flexibility for the use
of light extinction in certain cases. Light extinction
can be simpler to use in calculations than deciviews
since it is not a logarithmic function. See, e.g., 2019
Guidance at 16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/
guidance-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-second-implementation-period, EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
To address regional haze visibility
impairment, the 1999 RHR established
an iterative planning process that
requires both states in which Class I
areas are located and states ‘‘the
emissions from which may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any impairment of visibility’’ in a Class
I area to periodically submit SIP
revisions to address such impairment.
CAA 169A(b)(2); 6 see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission
dates for iterative regional haze SIP
revisions); 64 FR at 35768. Under the
CAA, each SIP submission must contain
‘‘a long-term (ten to fifteen years)
strategy for making reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal,’’ CAA
169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP
submissions also had to address the
statutory requirement that certain older,
larger sources of visibility impairing
pollutants install and operate the best
available retrofit technology (BART).
CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d),
(e). States’ first regional haze SIPs were
due by December 17, 2007, 40 CFR
51.308(b), with subsequent SIP
submissions containing updated longterm strategies (LTSs) originally due
July 31, 2018, and every ten years
thereafter. 64 FR at 35768. EPA
established in the 1999 RHR that all
states either have Class I areas within
their borders or ‘‘contain sources whose
emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to regional haze in a Class I
area’’; therefore, all states must submit
regional haze SIPs.7 Id. at 35721.
Much of the focus in the first
planning period of the regional haze
program, which ran from 2007 through
2018, was on satisfying states’ BART
obligations. First planning period SIPs
were additionally required to contain
LTSs for making reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal, of
which BART is one component. The
core required elements for the first
planning period SIPs (other than BART)
are laid out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those
provisions require that states containing
Class I areas establish ‘‘reasonable
progress goals’’ (‘‘RPGs’’) that are
Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for
the deciview is 10 ln (bext)/10 Mm¥1). See 40 CFR
51.301.
6 The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for
states to submit plans addressing out-of-state Class
I areas by providing that states must address
visibility impairment ‘‘in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from within the State.’’ See
40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
7 In addition to each of the 50 states, EPA also
concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of
Columbia must also submit regional haze SIPs
because they either contain a Class I area or contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated
to contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40
CFR 51.300(b), (d)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
measured in deciviews and reflect the
anticipated visibility conditions at the
end of the planning period including
from implementation of states’ LTSs.
The first planning period RPGs were
required to provide for an improvement
in visibility for the most impaired days
over the period of the implementation
plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period. In establishing the
RPGs for any Class I area in a state, the
state was required to consider four
statutory factors (also referenced herein
as ‘‘the four factors’’): the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful
life of any potentially affected sources.
See CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate
baseline (using the five year period of
2000–2004) and natural visibility
conditions (i.e., visibility conditions
without anthropogenic visibility
impairment) for each Class I area, and
to calculate the linear rate of progress
needed to attain natural visibility
conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004
and ending with natural conditions in
2064. This linear interpolation is known
as the uniform rate of progress (URP)
and is used as a tracking metric to help
states assess the amount of progress they
are making toward the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I
area.8 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), and
(d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that
states’ LTSs must include the
‘‘enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance, schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals.’’ See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3). In establishing their LTSs,
states are required to consult with other
states that also contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area and
include all measures necessary to obtain
8 EPA established the URP framework in the 1999
RHR to provide ‘‘an equitable analytical approach’’
to assess the rate of visibility improvement at Class
I areas across the country. The start point for the
URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility
improvement that was anticipated to result from
implementation of existing CAA programs over the
period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005.
Assuming this rate of progress would continue into
the future, EPA determined that natural visibility
conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 2064
(60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004).
However, EPA did not establish 2064 as the year
by which the national goal must be reached. See 64
FR at 35731–32. That is, the URP and the 2064 date
are not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that
‘‘allow for analytical comparisons between the rate
of progress that would be achieved by the state’s
chosen set of control measures and the URP.’’ See
82 FR 3078, 3084 (January 10, 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67343
their shares of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs. See 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii). Section
51.308(d) also contains seven additional
factors states must consider in
formulating their LTSs, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions
governing monitoring and other
implementation plan requirements. See
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999
RHR required states to submit periodic
progress reports—SIP revisions due
every five years that contain information
on states’ implementation of their
regional haze plans and an assessment
of whether anything additional is
needed to make reasonable progress, see
40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), and to consult
with the Federal Land Manager(s) 9
(FLMs) responsible for each Class I area
according to the requirements in CAA
169A(d) and 40 CFR 51.308(i).
On January 10, 2017, EPA
promulgated revisions to the RHR (82
FR 3078) that apply for the second and
subsequent planning periods. The 2017
rulemaking made several changes to the
requirements for regional haze SIPs to
clarify states’ obligations and streamline
certain regional haze requirements. The
revisions to the regional haze program
for the second and subsequent planning
periods focused on the requirement that
states’ SIPs contain LTSs for making
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. The reasonable progress
requirements as revised in the 2017
rulemaking (referred to here as the 2017
RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR
51.308(f). Among other changes, the
2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the
deadline for states to submit their
second planning period SIPs from July
31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, clarified the
order of analysis and the relationship
between RPGs and the LTSs, and
focused on making visibility
improvements on the days with the
most anthropogenic visibility
impairment, as opposed to the days
with the most visibility impairment
overall. EPA also revised requirements
of the visibility protection program
related to periodic progress reports and
FLM consultation. The specific
requirements applicable to second
planning period regional haze SIP
submissions are addressed in detail
below.
EPA provided guidance to the states
for their second planning period SIP
submissions in the preamble to the 2017
9 EPA’s regulations define ‘‘Federal Land
Manager’’ as ‘‘the Secretary of the department with
authority over the Federal Class I area (or the
Secretary’s designee) or, with respect to RooseveltCampobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park
Commission.’’ See 40 CFR 51.301.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
67344
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
RHR Revisions as well as in subsequent
stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, EPA issued its 2019
Guidance.10 On July 8, 2021, EPA issued
a memorandum containing
‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the
Second Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2021
Clarifications Memo’’).11 Additionally,
EPA had clarified the recommended
procedures for processing ambient
visibility data and optionally adjusting
the URP to account for international
anthropogenic and prescribed fire
impacts in two technical guidance
documents: the December 2018
‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking
Visibility Progress for the Second
Implementation Period of the Regional
Haze Program’’ (‘‘2018 Visibility
Tracking Guidance’’),12 and the June
2020 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of
Patched and Substituted Data and
Clarification of Data Completeness for
Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the
Regional Haze Program’’ and associated
Technical Addendum (‘‘2020 Data
Completeness Memo’’).13
As previously explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, EPA intends the
second planning period of the regional
haze program to secure meaningful
reductions in visibility impairing
pollutants that build on the significant
progress states have achieved to date.
The Agency also recognizes that
analyses regarding reasonable progress
are state-specific and that, based on
states’ and sources’ individual
circumstances, what constitutes
reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state
to state. While there exist many
opportunities for states to leverage both
ongoing and upcoming emission
reductions under other CAA programs,
10 See
footnote 5.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
11 ‘‘Clarifications
Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period.’’ https://www.epa.gov/
system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
12 ‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program.’’ EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park (December 20, 2018). https://www.epa.gov/
visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibilityprogress-second-implementation-period-regional.
13 ‘‘Recommendation for the Use of Patched and
Substituted Data and Clarification of Data
Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional
Haze Program.’’ https://www.epa.gov/visibility/
memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-datausage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (June 3, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
the Agency expects states to undertake
rigorous reasonable progress analyses
that identify further opportunities to
advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements. See, generally,
2021 Clarifications Memo. This is
consistent with Congress’s
determination that a visibility
protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA’s National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) programs, as further emission
reductions may be necessary to
adequately protect visibility in Class I
areas throughout the country.14
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants affecting
visibility in Class I areas can be
transported over long distances,
successful implementation of the
regional haze program requires longterm, regional coordination among
multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and
the emissions that impact visibility in
those areas. In order to address regional
haze, states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another,
considering the effect of emissions from
one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs),15 which include
representation from state and Tribal
governments, EPA, and FLMs, were
developed in the lead-up to the first
planning period to address regional
haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how
emissions from state and Tribal land
impact Class I areas across the country,
pursue the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of PM and
other pollutants leading to regional
haze, and help states meet the
consultation requirements of the RHR.
The Southeastern States Air Resource
Managers, Inc. (SESARM), one of the
five RPOs described above, is a
collaborative effort of state and local
agencies and Tribal governments
established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility,
14 See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95–294 at 205 (‘‘In
determining how to best remedy the growing
visibility problem in these areas of great scenic
importance, the committee realizes that as a matter
of equity, the national ambient air quality standards
cannot be revised to adequately protect visibility in
all areas of the country.’’), (‘‘the mandatory class I
increments of [the PSD program] do not adequately
protect visibility in class I areas’’).
15 RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ‘‘multijurisdictional organizations,’’ or MJOs. For the
purposes of this notice, the terms RPO and MJO are
synonymous.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and other air quality issues in the
Southeast. SESARM’s coalition to
conduct regional haze work is referred
to as Visibility Improvement State and
Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS).16 The member states, local air
agencies, and Tribal governments of
VISTAS are Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia; the local air
agencies, represented by the President
of Metro 4 or designee; 17 and the Tribes
located within the VISTAS region,
represented by the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Indians. The Federal partner
members of VISTAS are EPA, U.S.
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).18
III. Requirements for Regional Haze
Plans for the Second Planning Period
Under the CAA and EPA’s
regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
are required to submit regional haze
SIPs satisfying the applicable
requirements for the second planning
period of the regional haze program by
July 31, 2021. Each state’s SIP must
contain a LTS for making reasonable
progress toward meeting the national
goal of remedying any existing and
preventing any future anthropogenic
visibility impairment in Class I areas.
CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR
51.308(f) lays out the process by which
states determine what constitutes their
LTSs, with the order of the requirements
in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3)
generally mirroring the order of the
steps in the reasonable progress
analysis 19 and (f)(4) through (f)(6)
containing additional related
requirements.
Broadly speaking, a state first must
identify the Class I areas within the state
and determine the Class I areas outside
the state in which visibility may be
affected by emissions from the state.
These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state’s LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area
within its borders, a state must then
16 The VISTAS technical work under SESARM is
described at this website: https://www.metro4sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program.
17 Metro 4 is a Tennessee corporation which
represents the local air pollution control agencies
in EPA’s Region 4 in the Southeast. See https://
www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us.
18 The NPS, FWS, and USFS are collectively
referred to as the ‘‘Federal Land Managers’’ or
‘‘FLMs’’ throughout this document.
19 EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that
the Agency was adopting new regulatory language
in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike the structure in
51.308(d), ‘‘tracked the actual planning sequence.’’
82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017).
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
calculate the baseline, current, and
natural visibility conditions for that
area, as well as the visibility
improvement made to date and the URP.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state
having a Class I area and/or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area
must then develop a LTS that includes
the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress in such areas. A
reasonable progress determination is
based on applying the four factors in
CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of
visibility impairing pollutants that the
state has selected to assess for controls
for the second planning period.
Additionally, as further explained
below, the RHR at 40 CFR
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
‘‘additional factors’’ 20 that states must
consider in developing their long-term
strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A
state evaluates potential emission
reduction measures for those selected
sources and determines which are
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Those measures are then incorporated
into the state’s LTS. After a state has
developed its LTS, it then establishes
RPGs for each Class I area within its
borders by modeling the visibility
impacts of all reasonable progress
controls at the end of the second
planning period, i.e., in 2028, as well as
the impacts of other requirements of the
CAA. The RPGs include reasonable
progress controls not only for sources in
the state in which the Class I area is
located, but also for sources in other
states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The RPGs are
then compared to the baseline visibility
conditions and the URP to ensure that
progress is being made toward the
statutory goal of preventing any future
and remedying any existing
anthropogenic visibility impairment in
Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)
and (3).
In addition to satisfying the
requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f) related
to reasonable progress, the regional haze
SIP revisions for the second planning
period must address the requirements in
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5)
pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress toward the RPGs, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements for
FLM consultation that apply to all
visibility protection SIPs and SIP
revisions. See 40 CFR 51.308(i).
20 The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration
in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four
factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply
to sources in determining reasonable progress.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
A state must submit its regional haze
SIP and subsequent SIP revisions to
EPA according to the requirements
applicable to all SIP revisions under the
CAA and EPA’s regulations. See CAA
169A(b)(2); CAA 110(a). Upon EPA
approval, a SIP is enforceable by the
Agency and the public under the CAA.
If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if EPA finds
that a state’s SIP is incomplete or
disapproves the SIP, the Agency must
promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements. See CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional
haze SIP is for a state to determine
which Class I areas, in addition to those
within its borders, ‘‘may be affected’’ by
emissions from within the state. In the
1999 RHR, EPA determined that all
states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area,
64 FR at 35720–22, and explained that
the statute and regulations lay out an
‘‘extremely low triggering threshold’’ for
determining ‘‘whether States should be
required to engage in air quality
planning and analysis as a prerequisite
to determining the need for control of
emissions from sources within their
State.’’ Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I
areas must be addressed by its SIP by
evaluating the total emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants from all
sources within the state. While the RHR
does not require this evaluation to be
conducted in any particular manner,
EPA’s 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for how such an
assessment might be accomplished,
including, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the
first planning period. 2019 Guidance at
8–9. In addition, the determination of
which Class I areas may be affected by
a state’s emissions is subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii)
to ‘‘document the technical basis,
including modeling, monitoring, cost,
engineering, and emissions information,
on which the State is relying to
determine the emission reduction
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress in each mandatory
Class I Federal area it affects.’’
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current,
and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate
of Progress (URP)
As part of assessing whether a SIP
submission for the second planning
period is providing for reasonable
progress toward the national visibility
goal, the RHR contains requirements in
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67345
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to tracking
visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply
only to states having Class I areas within
their borders; the required calculations
must be made for each such Class I area.
EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance 21 provides recommendations
to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1);
specifically, in developing information
on baseline, current, and natural
visibility conditions, and in making
optional adjustments to the URP to
account for the impacts of international
anthropogenic emissions and prescribed
fires. See 82 FR at 3103–05.
The RHR requires tracking of
visibility conditions on two sets of days:
the clearest and the most impaired days.
Visibility conditions for both sets of
days are expressed as the average
deciview index for the relevant five-year
period (the period representing baseline
or current visibility conditions).22 The
RHR provides that the relevant sets of
days for visibility tracking purposes are
the 20 percent clearest days (the 20
percent of monitored days in a calendar
year with the lowest values of the
deciview index) and 20 percent most
impaired days (the 20 percent of
monitored days in a calendar year with
the highest amounts of anthropogenic
visibility impairment).23 See 40 CFR
51.301. A state must calculate visibility
conditions for both the 20 percent
clearest days and 20 percent most
impaired days for the baseline period of
2000–2004 and the most recent five-year
period for which visibility monitoring
data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must also
calculate natural visibility conditions
for the clearest days and most impaired
days 24 by estimating the conditions that
21 The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance
references and relies on parts of the 2003 Tracking
Guidance: ‘‘Guidance for Tracking Progress Under
the Regional Haze Rule’’ which can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/
documents/tracking.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(September 2003).
22 The ‘‘deciview index’’ means a value for a day
that is derived from calculated or measured light
extinction, such that uniform increments of the
index correspond to uniform incremental changes
in perception across the entire range of conditions,
from pristine to very obscured. The deciview index
is calculated using Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) aerosol
measurements. See 40 CFR 51.301.
23 This notice also refers to the 20 percent clearest
and 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired
days as the ‘‘clearest’’ and ‘‘most impaired’’ or
‘‘most anthropogenically impaired’’ days,
respectively.
24 The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an
error related to the requirement for calculating two
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
Continued
20AUP1
67346
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
would exist on those two sets of days
absent anthropogenic visibility
impairment. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii).
Using all these data, states must then
calculate, for each Class I area, the
amount of progress made since the
baseline period (2000–2004) and how
much improvement is left to achieve in
order to reach natural visibility
conditions.
Using the data for the set of most
impaired days only, states must plot a
line between visibility conditions in the
baseline period and natural visibility
conditions for each Class I area to
determine the URP—the amount of
visibility improvement, measured in
deciviews, that would need to be
achieved during each planning period
in order to achieve natural visibility
conditions by the end of 2064. The URP
is used in later steps of the reasonable
progress analysis for informational
purposes and to provide a nonenforceable benchmark against which to
assess a Class I area’s rate of visibility
improvement.25 Additionally, in the
2017 RHR Revisions, EPA provided
states the option of proposing to adjust
the endpoint of the URP to account for
impacts of anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or
impacts of certain types of wildland
prescribed fires. These adjustments,
which must be approved by EPA, are
intended to avoid any perception that
states should compensate for impacts
from international anthropogenic
sources and to give states the flexibility
to determine that limiting the use of
wildland prescribed fire is not necessary
for reasonable progress. See 82 FR 3107,
footnote 116.
EPA’s 2018 Visibility Tracking
Guidance can be used to help satisfy the
40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements,
including in developing information on
baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, and in making optional
adjustments to the URP. In addition, the
2020 Data Completeness Memo provides
recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in 40
sets of natural conditions values. The rule says
‘‘most impaired days or the clearest days’’ where it
should say ‘‘most impaired days and clearest days.’’
This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected
in the final rule language. This is supported by the
preamble text at 82 FR 3098: ‘‘In the final version
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of ‘or’ has
been corrected to ‘and’ to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired
days and the clearest days must be based on
available monitoring information.’’
25 Being on or below the URP is not a ‘‘safe
harbor’’; i.e., achieving the URP does not mean that
a Class I area is making ‘‘reasonable progress’’ and
does not relieve a state from using the four statutory
factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for
each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for
Regional Haze
The core component of a regional
haze SIP submission is a LTS that
addresses regional haze in each Class I
area within a state’s borders and each
Class I area that may be affected by
emissions from the state. The LTS
‘‘must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress,
as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i)
through (iv).’’ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
The amount of progress that is
‘‘reasonable progress’’ is based on
applying the four statutory factors in
CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation
of potential control options for sources
of visibility impairing pollutants, which
is referred to as a ‘‘four-factor’’ analysis
(FFA). The outcome of that analysis is
the emission reduction measures that a
particular source or group of sources
needs to implement in order to make
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission reduction
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress may be either new,
additional control measures for a source
or the existing emission reduction
measures that a source is already
implementing. See 2019 Guidance at 43;
2021 Clarifications Memo at 8–10. Such
measures must be represented by
‘‘enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures’’ in a state’s LTS in its SIP.
See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the
requirements for the FFA. The first step
of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission
reduction measures; to this end, the
RHR requires states to consider ‘‘major
and minor stationary sources or groups
of sources, mobile sources, and area
sources’’ of visibility impairing
pollutants for potential control analysis
(i.e., FFA). See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A
threshold question at this step is which
visibility impairing pollutants will be
analyzed. As EPA previously explained,
consistent with the first planning
period, EPA generally expects that each
state will analyze at least SO2 and NOX
in selecting sources and determining
control measures. See 2019 Guidance at
12 and 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.
A state that chooses not to consider at
least these two pollutants should
demonstrate why such consideration
would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
While states have the option to
analyze all sources, the 2019 Guidance
explains that ‘‘an analysis of control
measures is not required for every
source in each implementation period,’’
and that ‘‘[s]electing a set of sources for
analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is consistent
with the Regional Haze Rule, which sets
up an iterative planning process and
anticipates that a state may not need to
analyze control measures for all its
sources in a given SIP revision.’’ 2019
Guidance at 9. However, given that
source selection is the basis of all
subsequent control determinations, a
reasonable source selection process
‘‘should be designed and conducted to
ensure that source selection results in a
set of pollutants and sources the
evaluation of which has the potential to
meaningfully reduce their contributions
to visibility impairment.’’ See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a LTS that
addresses the regional haze visibility
impairment that results from emissions
from within that state. Thus, source
selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment
and be designed to capture a meaningful
portion of the state’s total contribution
to visibility impairment in Class I areas.
A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that
there are even larger out-of-state
contributors. See 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 4.26
Thus, while states have discretion to
choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable,
whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that a state’s
SIP submission include ‘‘a description
of the criteria it used to determine
which sources or groups of sources it
evaluated.’’ The technical basis for
source selection, which may include
methods for quantifying potential
visibility impacts such as emissions
divided by distance metrics, trajectory
analyses, residence time analyses, and/
or photochemical modeling, must also
be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
26 Similarly, in responding to comments on the
2017 RHR Revisions, EPA explained that ‘‘[a] state
should not fail to address its many relatively lowimpact sources merely because it only has such
sources and another state has even more low-impact
sources and/or some high impact sources.’’
Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility:
Amendments to Requirements for State Plans;
Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016)
(December 2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2015–0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
at 87–88, available at www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Once a state has selected the set of
sources, the next step is to determine
the emissions reduction measures for
those sources that are necessary to make
reasonable progress for the second
planning period.27 This is accomplished
by considering the four factors—‘‘the
costs of compliance, the time necessary
for compliance, and the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful
life of any existing source subject to
such requirements.’’ See CAA
169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the
FFA is an assessment of potential
emission reduction measures (i.e.,
control options) for sources; ‘‘use of the
terms ‘compliance’ and ‘subject to such
requirements’ in section 169A(g)(1)
strongly indicates that Congress
intended the relevant determination to
be the requirements with which sources
would have to comply in order to satisfy
the CAA’s reasonable progress
mandate.’’ See 82 FR at 3091. Thus, for
each source a state has selected for a
FFA,28 it must consider a ‘‘meaningful
set’’ of technically feasible control
options for reducing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at
3088. The 2019 Guidance provides that
‘‘[a] state must reasonably pick and
justify the measures that it will
consider, recognizing that there is no
statutory or regulatory requirement to
consider all technically feasible
measures or any particular measures. A
range of technically feasible measures
available to reduce emissions would be
one way to justify a reasonable set.’’ See
2019 Guidance at 29.
27 The CAA provides that ‘‘[i]n determining
reasonable progress there shall be taken into
consideration’’ the four statutory factors. See CAA
169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-factor
analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or
source categories, a state may also consider
additional emission reduction measures for
inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules
and measures for sources not selected for four-factor
analysis for the second planning period.
28 ‘‘Each source’’ or ‘‘particular source’’ is used
here as shorthand. While a source-specific analysis
is one way of applying the four factors, neither the
statute nor the RHR requires states to evaluate
individual sources. Rather, states have ‘‘the
flexibility to conduct four-factor analyses for
specific sources, groups of sources or even entire
source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each
state.’’ 82 FR at 3088. However, not all approaches
to grouping sources for four-factor analysis are
necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will
depend on the circumstances and the manner in
which grouping is conducted. If it is feasible to
establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant
factors can be quantified for those sources or
subgroups, then states should make a separate
reasonable progress determination for each source
or subgroup. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7–8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
EPA’s 2021 Clarifications Memo
provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control
options for consideration: ‘‘A reasonable
four-factor analysis will consider the
full range of potentially reasonable
options for reducing emissions.’’ See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 7. In
addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction
measures for sources), EPA explained
that states should generally analyze
efficiency improvements for sources’
existing measures as control options in
their FFAs, as in many cases such
improvements are reasonable given that
they typically involve only additional
operation and maintenance costs.
Additionally, the 2021 Clarifications
Memo provides that states that have
assumed a higher emission rate than a
source has achieved or could potentially
achieve using its existing measures
should also consider lower emission
rates as potential control options. That
is, a state should consider a source’s
recent actual and projected emission
rates to determine if it could reasonably
attain lower emission rates with its
existing measures. If so, the state should
analyze the lower emission rate as a
control option for reducing emissions.
See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7.
EPA’s recommendations to analyze
potential efficiency improvements and
achievable lower emission rates apply to
both sources that have been selected for
FFA and those that have forgone a FFA
on the basis of existing ‘‘effective
controls.’’ See 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of
potential control options for the sources
it has selected, a state then collects
information on the four factors with
regard to each option identified. EPA
has also explained that, in addition to
the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to
reasonably consider visibility benefits as
an additional factor alongside the four
statutory factors.29 The 2019 Guidance
provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to
characterize the four factors (with or
without visibility), as well as ways in
which states might reasonably consider
and balance that information to
determine which of the potential control
options is necessary to make reasonable
progress. See 2019 Guidance at 30–36.
The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
29 See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for
State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4,
2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA–HQ–
OAR–2015–0531, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency at 186, available at www.regulations.gov;
2019 Guidance at 36–37.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67347
further guidance on how states can
reasonably consider modeled visibility
impacts or benefits in the context of a
FFA. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at
12–13, 14–15. Specifically, EPA
explained that while visibility can
reasonably be used when comparing
and choosing between multiple
reasonable control options, it should not
be used to summarily reject controls
that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors. See 2021 Clarifications
Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states
have discretion to reasonably weigh the
factors and to determine what level of
control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i)
provides that a state ‘‘must include in
its implementation plan a description of
how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the measure
for inclusion in its long-term strategy.’’
As explained above, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction
measures for sources that are necessary
to make reasonable progress by
considering the four factors. Pursuant to
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal must
be included in a state’s LTS and in its
SIP.30 If the outcome of a FFA is a new,
additional emission reduction measure
for a source, that new measure is
necessary to make reasonable progress
toward remedying existing
anthropogenic visibility impairment and
must be included in the SIP. If the
outcome of a FFA is that no new
measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the
source’s existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission
increases and thus to make reasonable
progress toward the second part of the
national visibility goal: preventing
future anthropogenic visibility
impairment. See CAA 169A(a)(1). That
is, when the result of a FFA is that no
new measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, the source’s
existing measures are generally
necessary to make reasonable progress
and must be included in the SIP.
However, there may be circumstances in
which a state can demonstrate that a
source’s existing measures are not
30 States may choose to, but are not required to,
include measures in their long-term strategies
beyond just the emission reduction measures that
are necessary for reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with
smoke management programs may choose to submit
their smoke management plans to EPA for inclusion
in their SIPs but are not required to do so. See, e.g.,
82 FR at 3108–09 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management
programs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not
require states to adopt such practices or programs
into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
67348
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Specifically, if a state can demonstrate
that a source will continue to
implement its existing measures and
will not increase its emission rate, it
may not be necessary to have those
measures in the LTS in order to prevent
future emission increases and future
visibility impairment. EPA’s 2021
Clarifications Memo provides further
explanation and guidance on how states
may demonstrate that a source’s existing
measures are not necessary to make
reasonable progress. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 8–10. If the state
can make such a demonstration, it need
not include a source’s existing measures
in the LTS or its SIP.
As with source selection, the
characterization of information on each
of the factors is also subject to the
documentation requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress
analysis, including source selection,
information gathering, characterization
of the four statutory factors (and
potentially visibility), balancing of the
four factors, and selection of the
emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a
technically complex exercise, but also a
flexible one that provides states with
bounded discretion to design and
implement approaches appropriate to
their circumstances. Given this
flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays
an important function in requiring a
state to document the technical basis for
its decision making so that the public
and EPA can comprehend and evaluate
the information and analysis the state
relied upon to determine what emission
reduction measures must be in place to
make reasonable progress. The technical
documentation must include the
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering,
and emissions information on which the
state relied to determine the measures
necessary to make reasonable progress.
This documentation requirement can be
met through the provision of and
reliance on technical analyses
developed through a regional planning
process, so long as that process and its
output has been approved by all state
participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the
technical basis of their reasonable
progress determinations, states are also
subject to the general principle that
those determinations must be
reasonably moored to the statute.31 That
is, a state’s decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must be
consistent with the statutory goal of
remedying existing and preventing
future visibility impairment.
The four statutory factors (and
potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction
measures for selected sources must be
included in a state’s LTS for making
reasonable progress. Additionally, the
RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv)
separately provides five ‘‘additional
factors’’ 32 that states must consider in
developing their LTSs: (1) Emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to
address reasonably attributable visibility
impairment; (2) measures to reduce the
impacts of construction activities; (3)
source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management
practices for prescribed fire used for
agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke
management programs; and (5) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. The 2019
Guidance provides that a state may
satisfy this requirement by considering
these additional factors in the process of
selecting sources for a FFA, when
performing that analysis, or both, and
that not every one of the additional
factors needs to be considered at the
same stage of the process. See 2019
Guidance at 21. EPA provided further
guidance on the five additional factors
in the 2021 Clarifications Memo,
explaining that a state should generally
not reject cost-effective and otherwise
reasonable controls merely because
there have been emission reductions
since the first planning period owing to
other ongoing air pollution control
programs or merely because visibility is
otherwise projected to improve at Class
I areas. Additionally, states generally
should not rely on these additional
factors to summarily assert that the state
has already made sufficient progress
and, therefore, no sources need to be
selected or no new controls are needed
regardless of the outcome of FFAs. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
Because the air pollution that causes
regional haze crosses state boundaries,
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to
consult with other states that also have
31 See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815
F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA,
812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir. 2016); North Dakota v.
EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013); Oklahoma
v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208–10 (10th Cir.
2013); cf. also Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v.
EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep’t
of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 485,
490 (2004).
32 The five ‘‘additional factors’’ for consideration
in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four
factors listed in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) that states must consider and apply
to sources in determining reasonable progress.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that
impacts visibility in an area to share
whatever technical information,
analyses, and control determinations
may be necessary to develop
coordinated emission management
strategies. This coordination may be
managed through inter- and intra-RPO
consultation and the development of
regional emissions strategies; additional
consultations between states outside of
RPO processes may also occur. If a state,
pursuant to consultation, agrees that
certain measures (e.g., a certain
emission limitation) are necessary to
make reasonable progress at a Class I
area, it must include those measures in
its SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that
states that contribute to visibility
impairment at the same Class I area
consider the emission reduction
measures the other contributing states
have identified as being necessary to
make reasonable progress for their own
sources. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If
a state has been asked to consider or
adopt certain emission reduction
measures, but ultimately determines
those measures are not necessary to
make reasonable progress, that state
must document in its SIP the actions
taken to resolve the disagreement. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). EPA will
consider the technical information and
explanations presented by the
submitting state and the state with
which it disagrees when considering
whether to approve the state’s SIP. See
Id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all
circumstances, a state must document in
its SIP submission all substantive
consultations with other contributing
states. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
RPGs ‘‘measure the progress that is
projected to be achieved by the control
measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress
based on a four-factor analysis.’’ See 82
FR at 3091. Their primary purpose is to
assist the public and EPA in assessing
the reasonableness of states’ LTSs for
making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). States in which
Class I areas are located must establish
two RPGs—one representing visibility
conditions on the clearest days and one
representing visibility on the most
anthropogenically impaired days—for
each area within their borders. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i). The two RPGs, measured
in deciviews, are intended to reflect the
projected impacts, on each set of days,
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
of the emission reduction measures the
state with the Class I area and other
contributing states have included in
their LTSs for the second planning
period.33 The RPGs also account for the
projected impacts of implementing
other CAA requirements, including nonSIP based requirements. Because RPGs
are the modeled result of the measures
in states’ LTSs (as well as other
measures required under the CAA), they
cannot be determined before states have
conducted their FFAs and determined
the control measures that are necessary
to make reasonable progress.34 See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 6.
For the second planning period, the
RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are not
enforceable targets, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they ‘‘provide a
way for the states to check the projected
outcome of the [long-term strategy]
against the goals for visibility
improvement.’’ See 2019 Guidance at
46. While states are not legally obligated
to achieve the visibility conditions
described in their RPGs, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ‘‘[t]he longterm strategy and the reasonable
progress goals must provide for an
improvement in visibility for the most
impaired days since the baseline period
and ensure no degradation in visibility
for the clearest days since the baseline
period.’’ Thus, states are required to
have emission reduction measures in
their LTSs that are projected to achieve
visibility conditions on the most
impaired days that are better than the
baseline period and shows no
degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the
baseline period. The baseline period for
the purpose of this comparison is the
baseline visibility condition—the
annual average visibility condition for
the period 2000–2004. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097–98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a
metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making toward the
33 RPGs are intended to reflect the projected
impacts of the measures all contributing states
include in their long-term strategies. However, due
to the timing of analyses, control determinations by
other states, and other on-going emissions changes,
a particular state’s RPGs may not reflect all control
measures and emissions reductions that are
expected to occur by the end of the implementation
period. The 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for addressing the timing of RPG
calculations when states are developing their longterm strategies on disparate schedules, as well as for
adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling approach.
See 2019 Guidance at 47–48.
34 The 2019 Guidance allows for the possibility of
post-modeling adjustments to the RPGs to account
for the fact that final LTS decisions for the state or
for other states may not be known until late in the
process, or even after SIPs are submitted. See 2019
Guidance at 46–48. See also, 82 FR 3078, 3080
(January 10, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
national visibility goal, the RHR
requires states with Class I areas to
compare the 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days to the corresponding
point on the URP line (representing
visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility
were to improve at a linear rate from
conditions in the baseline period of
2000–2004 to natural visibility
conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the
URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are
improving more slowly than the rate
described by the URP), each state that
contributes to visibility impairment in
the Class I area must demonstrate, based
on the FFA required under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional
emission reduction measures would be
reasonable to include in its LTS. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state
contributing to visibility impairment in
a Class I area that is projected to
improve more slowly than the URP
provide ‘‘a robust demonstration,
including documenting the criteria used
to determine which sources or groups
[of] sources were evaluated and how the
four factors required by paragraph
(f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in
selecting the measures for inclusion in
its long-term strategy.’’ The 2019
Guidance provides suggestions about
how such a ‘‘robust demonstration’’
might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance
at 50–51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and
2021 Clarifications Memo also explain
that projecting an RPG that is on or
below the URP based on only on-thebooks and/or on-the-way control
measures (i.e., control measures already
required or anticipated before the FFA
is conducted) is not a ‘‘safe harbor’’
from the CAA’s and RHR’s requirement
that all states must conduct a FFA to
determine what emission reduction
measures constitute reasonable
progress.35 The URP is a planning
metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount
left before reaching natural visibility
conditions. However, the URP is not
based on consideration of the four
statutory factors and therefore cannot
answer the question of whether the
amount of progress being made in any
particular planning period is
‘‘reasonable progress.’’ See 82 FR at
3093, 3099–3100; 2019 Guidance at 22;
2021 Clarifications Memo at 15–16.
35 In lieu of conducting a FFA, states may elect
to show the source has existing effective controls
for the particular pollutants under evaluation or
that the source is shutting down by the end of the
planning period (or close to it).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67349
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State
Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to
have certain strategies and elements in
place for assessing and reporting on
visibility. Individual requirements
under this subsection apply either to
states with Class I areas within their
borders, states with no Class I areas but
that are reasonably anticipated to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area, or both. A state with
Class I areas within its borders must
submit with its SIP revision a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all Class I areas within
the state. SIP revisions for such states
must also provide for the establishment
of any additional monitoring sites or
equipment needed to assess visibility
conditions in Class I areas, as well as
reporting of all visibility monitoring
data to EPA at least annually.
Compliance with the monitoring
strategy requirement may be met
through a state’s participation in the
IMPROVE monitoring network, which is
used to measure visibility impairment
caused by air pollution at the 156 Class
I areas covered by the visibility
program. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6),
(f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE
monitoring data is used to determine the
20 percent most anthropogenically
impaired and 20 percent clearest sets of
days every year at each Class I area and
tracks visibility impairment over time.
All states’ implementation plans must
provide for procedures by which
monitoring data and other information
are used to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to
regional haze visibility impairment in
affected Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that all
states’ implementation plans provide for
a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area;
the inventory must include emissions
for the most recent year for which data
are available and estimates of future
projected emissions. States must also
include commitments to update their
inventories periodically. The
inventories themselves do not need to
be included as elements in the SIP and
are not subject to EPA review as part of
the Agency’s evaluation of a SIP
revision.36 All states’ implementation
plans must also provide for any other
36 See ‘‘Step 8: Additional requirements for
regional haze SIPs’’ in 2019 Guidance at 55.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
67350
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures, that
are necessary for states to assess and
report on visibility. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019 Guidance,
a state may note in its regional haze SIP
that its compliance with the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40
CFR part 51, subpart A satisfies the
requirement to provide for an emissions
inventory for the most recent year for
which data are available. To satisfy the
requirement to provide estimates of
future projected emissions, a state may
explain in its SIP how projected
emissions were developed for use in
establishing RPGs for its own and
nearby Class I areas.37
Separate from the requirements
related to monitoring for regional haze
purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the
RHR also contains a requirement at 40
CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any
additional monitoring that may be
needed to address visibility impairment
in Class I areas from a single source or
a small group of sources. This is called
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.’’ 38 Under this provision, if
EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I
area has advised a state that additional
monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment (RAVI), the state must
include in its SIP revision for the
second planning period an appropriate
strategy for evaluating such impairment.
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Toward the RPGs
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state’s
regional haze SIP revision to address the
requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5) so that the plan
revision due in 2021 will serve also as
a progress report addressing the period
since submission of the progress report
for the first planning period. The
regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the
public and EPA about a state’s
implementation of its existing LTS and
whether such implementation is in fact
resulting in the expected visibility
improvement. See 81 FR 26942, 26950
(May 4, 2016), 82 FR 3119 (January 10,
2017). To this end, every state’s
implementation plan revision for the
second planning period is required to
describe the status of implementation of
all measures included in the state’s LTS,
including BART and reasonable
progress emission reduction measures
37 Id.
38 EPA’s visibility protection regulations define
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’ as
‘‘visibility impairment that is caused by the
emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.’’ 40 CFR 51.301.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
from the first planning period, and the
resulting emissions reductions. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
A core component of the progress
report requirements is an assessment of
changes in visibility conditions on the
clearest and most impaired days. For
second planning period progress
reports, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires
states with Class I areas within their
borders to first determine current
visibility conditions for each area on the
most impaired and clearest days, 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i), and then to
calculate the difference between those
current conditions and baseline (2000–
2004) visibility conditions in order to
assess progress made to date. See 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii). States must also
assess the changes in visibility
impairment for the most impaired and
clearest days since they submitted their
first planning period progress reports.
See 40 CFR 51.308 (f)(5) and (g)(3)(iii).
Since different states submitted their
first planning period progress reports at
different times, the starting point for
this assessment will vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide
analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources
and activities within the state over the
period since they submitted their first
planning period progress reports. See 40
CFR 51.308 (f)(5) and (g)(4). Changes in
emissions should be identified by the
type of source or activity. Section
51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes in
emissions since the period addressed by
the previous progress report and
requires states’ implementation plan
revisions to include an assessment of
any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state. This assessment must
include an explanation of whether these
changes in emissions were anticipated
and whether they have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions
and improving visibility relative to what
the state projected based on its LTS for
the first planning period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal
Land Manager (FLM) Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires that
before a state holds a public hearing on
a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it
must consult with the appropriate FLM
or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation,
the state must include a summary of the
FLMs’ conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the
public. Consistent with this statutory
requirement, the RHR also requires that
states ‘‘provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at a point early enough in the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
State’s policy analyses of its long-term
strategy emission reduction obligation
so that information and
recommendations provided by the
[FLM] can meaningfully inform the
State’s decisions on the long-term
strategy.’’ See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
Consultation that occurs 120 days prior
to any public hearing or public
comment opportunity will be deemed
‘‘early enough,’’ but the RHR provides
that in any event the opportunity for
consultation must be provided at least
60 days before a public hearing or
comment opportunity. This consultation
must include the opportunity for the
FLMs to discuss their assessment of
visibility impairment in any Class I area
and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of
strategies to address such impairment.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for EPA to
evaluate whether FLM consultation
meeting the requirements of the RHR
has occurred, the SIP submission should
include documentation of the timing
and content of such consultation. The
SIP revision submitted to EPA must also
describe how the state addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs. 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision
must provide procedures for continuing
consultation between the state and
FLMs regarding the state’s visibility
protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
IV. EPA’s Evaluation of North
Carolina’s Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Planning Period
On April 4, 2022, DAQ submitted a
revision to the North Carolina SIP to
address the State’s regional haze
obligations for the second planning
period, which runs through 2028, in
accordance with CAA sections 169A
and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f).39 The
following sections contain EPA’s
evaluation of North Carolina’s Haze
Plan with respect to the requirements of
the CAA and RHR for the second
39 On June 27, 2012, EPA finalized a limited
approval of North Carolina’s first planning period
regional haze plan submitted to EPA on December
17, 2007 (77 FR 38185). On June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the
December 17, 2007, submission. On May 24, 2016,
EPA approved North Carolina’s October 31, 2014,
BART alternative demonstration, which was a
revision to its regional haze plan and converted the
limited approval of the December 17, 2007,
submission to a full approval (81 FR 32652). On
August 25, 2016, EPA approved North Carolina’s
May 31, 2013, progress report for the first planning
period (81 FR 58400).
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
planning period of the regional haze
program.
North Carolina has five Class I areas,
two of which are shared with
Tennessee: Linville Gorge National
Wilderness Area (‘‘Linville Gorge’’);
Shining Rock National Wilderness Area
(‘‘Shining Rock’’); Swanquarter National
Wilderness Area (‘‘Swanquarter’’); Great
Smoky Mountains National Park (‘‘Great
Smoky Mountains’’) (NC/TN); and Joyce
Kilmer-Slickrock National Wilderness
Area (‘‘Joyce Kilmer’’) (NC/TN). The
following sections describe North
Carolina’s Haze Plan, including analyses
conducted by VISTAS and North
Carolina’s determinations based on
those analyses, North Carolina’s
assessment of progress made since the
first planning period in reducing
emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants, and the visibility
improvement progress at its Class I areas
and nearby Class I areas. This document
also contains EPA’s evaluation of North
Carolina’s Haze Plan against the
requirements of the CAA and RHR for
the second planning period of the
regional haze program.
A. Identification of Class I Areas
1. RHR Requirement: Section
169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each
state in which any Class I area is located
or ‘‘the emissions from which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of
visibility’’ in a Class I area to have a
plan for making reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal. The
RHR implements this statutory
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which
provides that each state’s plan ‘‘must
address regional haze in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located
within the State and in each mandatory
Class I Federal area located outside the
State that may be affected by emissions
from within the State,’’ and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2), which requires each state’s
plan to include a LTS that addresses
regional haze in such Class I areas. To
develop a state’s LTS, a state must first
determine which Class I areas may be
affected by its own emissions. For outof-state Class I areas, states must assess
their visibility impacts on a statewide
basis which is discussed in Section
IVA.2, below, and on a source specific
basis which is discussed in Section
IV.C.2, below.
2. State Assessment: To address 40
CFR 51.308(f), North Carolina identified
Class I areas affected by North
Carolina’s statewide emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants and then
consulted with states with Class I areas
affected by North Carolina’s statewide
emissions. DAQ presented the results of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
Particulate Matter Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) 40
modeling which VISTAS conducted to
estimate the projected impact of
statewide SO2 and NOX emissions
across all emissions sectors in 2028 on
total light extinction for the 20 percent
most impaired days in all Class I areas
in the VISTAS modeling domain.41 In
Table 7–14 of the 2022 Plan, DAQ lists
the total sulfate plus nitrate contribution
from all source sectors in North Carolina
to total visibility impairment for the 20
percent most impaired days at Class I
areas in the VISTAS modeling domain
in inverse megameters (Mm¥1). North
Carolina’s top three highest sulfate plus
nitrate impairment impacts to out-ofstate Class I areas are: Wolf Island
National Wilderness Area (Wolf Island)
(0.78 Mm¥1) and Okefenokee National
Wilderness Area (Okefenokee) (0.67
Mm¥1) in Georgia and James River Face
National Wilderness Area (James River
Face) (0.45 Mm¥1) in Virginia.42
Based on these results for the out-ofstate Class I areas, North Carolina
consulted with the VISTAS states (see
Section 10.1 and Appendix F–1 of the
2022 Plan) and the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–
VU) 43 states (see Section 10.3 and
Appendix F–4 of the 2022 Plan) which
contain Class I areas located nearest to
North Carolina and to which North
Carolina’s emissions had the highest
sulfate plus nitrate contribution to total
sulfate plus nitrate visibility
impairment. The purpose of this
40 PSAT is Particulate Matter Source
Apportionment Technology, which is an option in
the photochemical visibility impact modeling
performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to
track the fate of both primary and secondary PM.
PSAT allows emissions to be tracked (‘‘tagged’’) for
individual facilities as well as various combinations
of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by state). The
PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of
each of the tagged sources or groups of sources to
the total visibility impacts.
41 DAQ did not include primary PM (directly
emitted) data in this analysis because the PSAT
analyses performed by VISTAS tagged statewide
emissions of SO2 and NOX and did not tag primary
total PM emissions in the analysis after concluding
that emissions of the PM precursors SO2 and NOX,
particularly from point sources, are projected to
have the largest impact on visibility impairment in
2028 and that SO2 and NOX are the most significant
visibility impairing pollutants from controllable
anthropogenic sources.
42 In contrast, North Carolina’s sulfate plus nitrate
impairment impacts to the State’s Class I areas are:
0.95 Mm¥1, 1.13 Mm¥1, 1.83 Mm¥1, 0.89 Mm¥1,
0.43 Mm¥1 for Linville Gorge, Shining Rock,
Swanquarter, Great Smoky Mountains, and Joyce
Kilmer, respectively.
43 MANE–VU was established in 2001 to assist
the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states in planning
and developing their regional haze SIP revisions.
The MANE–VU states are Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
and Vermont.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67351
consultation was to identify whether
North Carolina’s statewide impacts to
the VISTAS and MANE–VU states are
significant enough to develop
coordinated emission management
strategies containing the emission
reductions necessary to make reasonable
progress.44 With respect to MANE–VU,
none of the states in this RPO contacted
North Carolina for consultation with the
exception of New Hampshire and New
Jersey. North Carolina’s consultation
with MANE–VU, New Hampshire, and
New Jersey is further discussed in
Section IV.C.2.e of this document and
Section I.E of EPA’s Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed
rulemaking.
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to
conclude that North Carolina adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(f) regarding
identification of its statewide visibility
impacts to Class I areas outside of the
State and consulting with states with
Class I areas which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility due to North
Carolina’s emissions. EPA proposes to
agree with the State’s approach of
focusing on SO2 and NOX impacts from
North Carolina on the basis that for
current visibility conditions evaluated
for the 2014–2018 period, ammonium
sulfate is the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant at most of the
VISTAS Class I areas followed by
organic carbon and ammonium nitrate
(depending on the area).45 VISTAS
focused on controllable emissions from
point sources, and thus, initially
considered impacts from sulfates and
nitrates on regional haze at Class I areas
affected by VISTAS states. EPA agrees
that North Carolina adequately
identified Class I areas outside of North
Carolina that may be affected by
emissions from within the State and
consulted with affected states. The
information submitted by North
Carolina supports this finding, because
it shows that the state analyzed its
statewide sulfate and nitrate
contributions to total visibility
impairment at out-of-state Class I areas
in Table 7–14 of the 2022 Plan; none of
44 North Carolina did not consult with states with
Class I areas in the Central States Air Resource
Agencies (CENSARA), Lake Michigan Air Directors’
Consortium (LADCO), and Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) RPO regions because North
Carolina’s statewide sulfate plus nitrate
contribution to total sulfate plus nitrate impairment
in the Class I areas in these regions was relatively
low (i.e., ranging from zero percent to 0.12 percent
of total sulfate plus nitrate impairment).
Additionally, no states in CENSARA, LADCO, and
WRAP requested consultation with North Carolina
regarding its statewide emissions.
45 See Figures 2–17 and 2–18 of the 2022 Plan for
the VISTAS Class I areas. See also section IV.C.2.a
of this notice.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
67352
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the Class I areas in MANE–VU and
VISTAS have 2028 RPGs on the 20
percent most impaired days above the
URP; 46 with the exception of Joyce
Kilmer, the visibility impairment due to
emissions from North Carolina at instate Class I areas is greater than the
impairment due to emission from North
Carolina at out-of-state Class I areas; and
the State completed consultation with
VISTAS and MANE–VU states via the
RPO processes and, in some cases, on a
state-to-state basis and documented
those consultations.47
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current,
and Natural Visibility Conditions;
Progress to Date; and the URP
1. RHR Requirement: Section
51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine
the following for ‘‘each mandatory Class
I Federal area located within the State’’:
baseline visibility conditions for the
clearest days and most impaired days,
natural visibility conditions for clearest
days and most impaired days, progress
to date for the clearest days and most
impaired days, the differences between
current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This
section also provides the option for
states to propose adjustments to the
URP line for a Class I area to account for
visibility impacts from anthropogenic
sources outside the United States and/
or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain,
specified objectives. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
2. State Assessment: In the 2022 Plan,
North Carolina calculated baseline
visibility conditions (2000–2004) in
Table 2–3; current visibility conditions
(2014–2018) in Table 2–5; 48 and natural
visibility conditions in Table 2–2 for the
20 percent most impaired and 20
percent clearest days for the State’s
Class I areas in deciviews as shown in
Table 1, below. North Carolina also
calculated for its Class I areas the actual
progress made toward natural visibility
conditions to date since the baseline
period (current minus baseline), and the
additional progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions from
current conditions (natural minus
current), in deciviews, in Table 2–6 (for
the 20 percent most impaired days) and
Table 2–7 (for the 20 percent clearest
days) as shown in Table 2, below.
TABLE 1—BASELINE, CURRENT, AND NATURAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN NORTH CAROLINA’S CLASS I AREAS IN
DECIVIEWS (dv)
Baseline 20%
clearest days
Class I area
Great Smoky Mountains ..............
Joyce Kilmer ................................
Linville Gorge ...............................
Shining Rock ................................
Swanquarter .................................
Baseline 20%
most impaired
days
13.58
13.58
11.11
7.70
12.34
Current 20%
clearest days
29.11
29.11
28.05
28.13
23.79
Current 20%
most impaired
days
8.35
8.35
7.61
4.40
10.61
Natural 20%
clearest days
17.21
17.21
16.42
15.49
16.30
4.62
4.62
4.07
2.49
5.71
Natural 20%
most impaired
days
10.05
10.05
9.70
* 10.25
* 10.01
* The 2022 Plan indicates in Table Ex–1–3 and Table 8–1 that natural conditions are 10.01 and 9.79 deciviews for Shining Rock and
Swanquarter, respectively. Tables Ex–1–1, Table 2–2, and Tables 2–6 reflect the correct values shown here which are derived from EPA’s June
3, 2020, Technical Addendum available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_
addendum.pdf.
TABLE 2—ACTUAL PROGRESS FOR VISIBILITY CONDITIONS IN NORTH CAROLINA’S CLASS I AREAS IN DECIVIEWS (dv)
Current minus
baseline for 20%
clearest days
Class I area
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Great Smoky Mountains ..................................................
Joyce Kilmer ....................................................................
Linville Gorge ...................................................................
Shining Rock ....................................................................
Swanquarter .....................................................................
Current minus
baseline for 20%
most impaired
days
¥5.23
¥5.23
¥3.50
¥3.30
¥1.73
Natural minus
current for 20%
clearest days
¥11.90
¥11.90
¥11.63
¥12.64
¥7.49
¥3.73
¥3.73
¥3.54
¥1.91
¥4.90
Natural minus
current for 20%
most impaired
days
¥7.16
¥7.16
¥6.72
¥5.24
¥6.29
Additionally, Figures 3–1, 3–2, 3–3,
and 3–4 of the 2022 Plan provide the
URP figures for the 20 percent most
impaired days for Great Smoky
Mountains (which also represents the
URP for Joyce Kilmer), Linville Gorge,
Shining Rock, and Swanquarter,
respectively. The URPs were developed
using EPA guidance 49 and used data
collected from the IMPROVE monitoring
network which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air
pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program. All
North Carolina Class I areas are
projected to be below the 2028 URP
values for the second planning period
based on VISTAS’ modeling.
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA finds that
North Carolina’s Haze Plan meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)
because the State provided for its five
Class I areas: baseline, current, and
natural visibility conditions for the 20
46 See Memorandum from Richard A. Wayland,
OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Directors re:
Availability of Modeling Data and Associated
Technical Support Document for the EPA’s
Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality Modeling
(September 19, 2019), available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/
documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_
modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf.
47 See Section IV.C.2.e of this notice and Section
I.E of EPA’s TSD for additional detail regarding
consultation.
48 The period 2014–2018 represents current
visibility conditions for North Carolina because it
is the most recent five-year period for which
visibility monitoring data were available at the time
of SIP development.
49 ‘‘Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of
the Regional Haze Program.’’ EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park (December 20, 2018). https://www.epa.gov/
sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_
guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf and
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/
documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_
technical_addendum.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:35 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
percent clearest days and most impaired
days; progress to date for the 20 percent
clearest days and most impaired days;
differences between the current
visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions; and the URP for
each Class I area in North Carolina.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
the portions of the North Carolina SIP
submission related to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1).
C. LTS for Regional Haze
1. RHR Requirement: Each state
having a Class I area within its borders
or emissions that may affect visibility in
a Class I area must develop a LTS for
making reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. CAA
169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in Section
II of this document, reasonable progress
is achieved when all states contributing
to visibility impairment in a Class I area
are implementing the measures
determined—through application of the
four statutory factors to sources of
visibility impairing pollutants—to be
necessary to make reasonable progress.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state’s LTS
must include the enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional)
measures that are the outcome of FFAs
are necessary to make reasonable
progress and must be in the LTS. If the
conclusion of a FFA and other measures
necessary to make reasonable progress
for a particular source is that no new
measures are reasonable, that source’s
existing measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, unless the state can
demonstrate that the source will
continue to implement those measures
and will not increase its emission rate.
Existing measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must also be
in the LTS. In developing its LTS, a
state must also consider the five
additional factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its reasonable
progress determinations, the state must
describe the criteria used to determine
which sources or group of sources were
evaluated (i.e., subjected to FFA) for the
second planning period and how the
four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission
reduction measures for inclusion in the
LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
States may rely on technical
information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select
sources for FFA and to satisfy the
documentation requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has
performed source selection and/or FFAs
(or considered the five additional factors
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its
member states, those states may rely on
the RPO’s analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the states have
a reasonable basis to do so and all state
participants in the RPO process have
approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii). States may also satisfy
the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate
consultation with other states that have
emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in a given Class I area under
the auspices of intra- and inter-RPO
engagement.
The consultation requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide that states
must consult with other states that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission
management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B)
require states to consider the emission
reduction measures identified by other
states as necessary for reasonable
progress and to include agreed upon
measures in their SIPs, respectively.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to
what happens if states cannot agree on
what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress. The documentation
requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii)
provides that states may meet their
obligations to document the technical
bases on which they are relying to
determine the emission reductions
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress through an RPO, as
long as the process has been ‘‘approved
by all State participants.’’
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires
that the emissions information
considered to determine the measures
that are necessary to make reasonable
progress include information on
emissions for the most recent year for
which the state has submitted triennial
emissions data to the EPA (or a more
recent year), with a 12-month
exemption period for newly submitted
data.
2. State Assessment: To develop
North Carolina’s LTS, DAQ set criteria
to identify sources to evaluate for
potential controls using the four factors
outlined in Section II.B, selected
sources based on those criteria,
considered the four factors for the
selected sources, provided emissions
limits and supporting conditions for
adoption into the regulatory portion of
the SIP, and evaluated the five
additional factors at 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67353
a. Source Selection Criteria: With
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), North
Carolina, through VISTAS, used a twostep source selection process: (1) Area of
Influence (AoI) analysis, and (2) PSAT 50
modeling for sources exceeding an AoI
threshold.51 North Carolina considered
the four factors for sources that
exceeded both the AoI and PSAT
thresholds. Both sulfates and nitrates
were considered in the source selection
process. To identify sources having the
most impact on visibility at Class I areas
for PSAT modeling, DAQ used an AoI
threshold of greater than or equal to
three percent for sulfate and nitrate
combined at any North Carolina Class I
area for all sources within and outside
of the State. Sources which exceeded
North Carolina’s AoI threshold are listed
in Tables 7–20 through 7–24 of the Haze
Plan. Of these sources, five sources in
North Carolina exceeded the AoI
threshold for any Class I area in the
State: Blue Ridge Paper Products—
Canton Mill (BRPP); Domtar Paper LLC
(Domtar); 52 Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
(DEC)—Marshall Steam Station (DECMarshall); PCS Phosphate Inc.—Aurora
(PCS); and SGL Carbon LLC.53
North Carolina, in coordination with
the other VISTAS states, set a PSAT
threshold of greater than or equal to one
percent for sulfate or nitrate. Sources
identified based on the State’s PSAT
threshold are listed in Tables 7–36, 7–
37, and 7–38 of the 2022 Plan. Of the
19 sources that exceeded the sulfate
PSAT threshold, 16 sources are located
in 10 other states and three are located
in North Carolina. North Carolina
selected the three in-state sources
50 PSAT modeling is a type of photochemical
modeling which quantifies individual facility
visibility impacts to an area. See footnote 40. DAQ
applied its PSAT threshold by facility whereas in
the first period, DAQ applied the threshold by
emissions unit at selected facilities.
51 The AoI represents the geographical area
around a Class I area in which emissions sources
located in the AoI have the potential to contribute
to visibility impairment at that Class I area.
Emissions data from sources in the AoI is then
evaluated to determine which of those sources are
most likely contributing to visibility impairment at
that Class I area. VISTAS used AoI analysis for all
point source facilities in the VISTAS modeling
domain to determine the relative visibility
impairment impacts at each Class I area associated
with sulfate and nitrate. The results of the facilitylevel AoI analyses were then used to rank and
prioritize facilities for further evaluation via PSAT.
52 On December 1, 2023, DAQ issued Air Quality
Permit No. 04291T51 authorizing modifications to
the Domtar facility, which is available at: https://
edocs.deq.nc.gov/AirQuality/DocView.aspx?
id=457541&dbid=0&repo=AirQuality&searchid=
c271acf8-6535-4306-8cfb-9a0caa2b3d97. Because
these authorized permit modifications are
subsequent to the North Carolina SIP submission,
North Carolina did not consider the modification to
determine reasonable progress in the second
planning period.
53 See Table 7–29 on p. 227 of the 2022 Plan.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
67354
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(BRPP, Domtar, and PCS) for an
emissions control analysis.54 The
projected 2028 SO2 emissions (in tons
per year (tpy)) from BRPP, Domtar, and
PCS are 483, 1,120, and 3,045,
respectively.55 No sources modeled for
PSAT exceeded the PSAT threshold for
nitrates. Because no sources exceeded
the State’s PSAT threshold for nitrates
and because ammonium sulfate
continues to be the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant at the North
Carolina Class I areas (as discussed in
the following paragraphs), DAQ focused
solely on evaluating potential SO2
controls from BRPP, Domtar, and PCS to
address regional haze in potentially
affected Class I areas. Section I.A of the
TSD provides additional detail
regarding the State’s source selection
process.
The 2022 Plan shows the VISTAS
model projections demonstrating that
ammonium sulfate is expected to
remain the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant through 2028, by a
factor of four or greater, over ammonium
nitrate at Class I areas in North
Carolina.56 In Section 7.4 of the 2022
Plan, DAQ explains the VISTAS
analyses relied upon to support the
State’s focus on SO2 control evaluations.
Additionally, Section 10.4.1 of the Haze
Plan provides the State’s responses to
FLM comments on the exclusion of NOX
control evaluations from the FFAs.
Although ammonium nitrate
contributions to light extinction have
increased in recent years (2016–2018),
sulfate is still the highest contributor to
visibility impairment in North
Carolina’s Class I areas. DAQ provided
light extinction data on the 20 percent
most impaired and 20 percent clearest
days for the North Carolina Class I areas
for the 2009–2013 modeling base period
and the 2014–2018 current conditions
period which show that ammonium
sulfate continues to be the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant on the 20
percent most impaired visibility days
during the 2009–2013 period and 2014–
2018 period.57
In Section 10.4.1, DAQ reviewed more
recent visibility monitoring data for the
period 2015–2019 from the IMPROVE
monitoring network for Great Smoky
Mountains, Linville Gorge, and Shining
Rock.58 Table 3, below, summarizes the
percent contribution on the 20 percent
most impaired days at Great Smoky
Mountains (also Joyce Kilmer), Linville
Gorge, and Shining Rock for certain PM
species (i.e., ammonium sulfate,
ammonium nitrate, and organic carbon)
in 2009–2013 versus 2015–2019.59
TABLE 3—FIVE-YEAR AVERAGE (2009–2013 vs. 2015–2019) PERCENT (%) PARTICLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO LIGHT
EXTINCTION FOR 20% MOST IMPAIRED DAYS AT GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS,* LINVILLE GORGE, AND SHINING ROCK 60
Great smoky mountains
PM species
2009–2013
(%)
Ammonium Sulfate ...................................
Ammonium Nitrate ...................................
Organic Carbon ........................................
76.3
5.2
11.1
Linville gorge
2015–2019
(%)
2009–2013
(%)
54.4
16.6
17.4
Shining rock
2015–2019
(%)
77.2
2.5
12.5
56.9
8.0
22.4
2009–2013
(%)
74.5
5.5
12.5
2015–2019
(%)
58.1
10.3
19.4
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* Monitoring data for Great Smoky Mountains serves as the IMPROVE data for Joyce Kilmer.
Figures 7–27 (Swanquarter), 7–28
(Shining Rock), 7–29 (Linville Gorge),
7–30 (Joyce Kilmer), and 7–31 (Great
Smoky Mountains) in the 2022 Plan
show that the majority of 2028 predicted
nitrate light extinction on the 20 percent
most impaired days at North Carolina’s
Class I areas is not caused by NOX
emissions from EGU and non-EGU point
sources.61 At Shining Rock, Linville
Gorge, Joyce Kilmer, and the Great
Smoky Mountains, projected 2028 total
sulfate extinction is greater than 17
Mm¥1 and total projected 2028 total
nitrate extinction is less than 3.5 Mm¥1.
At Swanquarter, the projected 2028
sulfate extinction is 16.6 Mm¥1 and the
projected 2028 nitrate extinction is 4.5
Mm¥1. DAQ states that North Carolina
sources contribute a small percentage to
total nitrate impairment in all cases
(ranging from less than one percent of
all nitrate visibility impairment at the
Great Smoky Mountains to 13 percent at
Swanquarter).
DAQ states that it is unclear why
ammonium nitrate has started to
increase at some but not all VISTAS
Class I areas while point and mobile
source NOX emissions have been
declining. VISTAS modeling for 2028
suggests that sources outside of North
Carolina may be the likely contributor.
DAQ indicates that further research is
needed to identify the emission sources
and geographic locations of those
sources contributing to the ammonium
nitrate fraction of PM2.5 contributing to
regional haze. DAQ notes that at some
locations, one ton of SO2 reduction can
have anywhere from twice to more than
100 times the impact on visibility
impairment as one ton of NOX
reduction.62
54 BRPP and Domtar are pulp and paper mills.
PCS is a fertilizer plant with sulfuric acid plants on
site.
55 See Tables 7–48, 7–55, and 7–60 on pp. 271,
275, and 279, respectively, of the 2022 Plan.
56 See Figures 2–7 through 2–18 and Figure 10–
10 of the 2022 Plan. Figures 2–7 through 2–10
provide 2009–2013 speciated PM data for North
Carolina’s Class I areas showing that ammonium
sulfate is the dominant visibility impairing
pollutant. Figures 2–11 and 2–12 provide speciated
PM data for 2009–2013 for the VISTAS Class I areas
and neighboring areas on the 20 percent most
impaired days and 20 percent clearest days,
respectively. Figures 2–13 to 2–18 show the
speciated PM data for North Carolina’s Class I areas
for the period 2014–2018 showing that ammonium
sulfate is the dominant visibility impairing
pollutant. Figures 2–17 and 2–18 provide speciated
PM data for 2014–2018 for the VISTAS Class I areas
and neighboring areas on the 20 percent most
impaired days and 20 percent clearest days,
respectively.
57 See Section 2.5.2 (particularly Figures 2–7
through 2–11 for the 2009–2013 period and Figures
2–13 through 2–18 for the 2014–2018 period), and
Section 10.4.1 of the 2022 Plan related to
ammonium nitrate.
58 DAQ did not include 2015–2019 IMPROVE
monitoring data for Swanquarter in Section 10.4.1
because NPS and USFS did not request that DAQ
consider more recent visibility monitoring data for
Swanquarter.
59 The data in Table 1 is derived from Figures 10–
1, 10–2, and 10–3 of the 2022 Plan. Swanquarter
speciation data is shown in Figures 2–10 through
2–12 and 2–16 through 2–18 of the 2022 Plan.
60 DAQ provided IMPROVE monitoring data in
Figures 10–1, 10–2, and 10–3 regarding Great
Smoky Mountains (also for Joyce Kilmer), Linville
Gorge, and Shining Rock. For Swanquarter, 2015–
2019 IMPROVE data for the 20 percent most
impaired days are: 50 percent, 17 percent, and 17
percent for ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate,
and organic carbon, respectively. See https://
vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/rhr-summarydata/.
61 Figure 7–26 provides the 2028 visibility
impairment from nitrate on the 20 percent most
impaired days for all 18 Class I Areas in VISTAS.
The figure shows the EGU and non-EGU
contributions to total nitrate derived light
extinction in 2028.
62 See pp. 333–335 and Table 10–8 of the 2022
Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
In Section 7.7.3.2 of the 2022 Plan,
DAQ reviewed North Carolina facilities
that were not selected for PSAT
modeling and which had an AoI
contribution between one and three
percent for one or more Class I areas in
North Carolina and which were not
selected for FFA evaluation. This review
included the eight Duke Energy power
plants with coal units in North Carolina
which, with the exception of DECMarshall, did not meet North Carolina’s
AoI threshold (see Table 7–43 of the
2022 Plan). DAQ reviewed existing SO2
and NOX controls for the Duke Energy
facilities with coal units and non-EGUs
with an AOI contribution between one
and three percent sulfate plus nitrate
and based on this review, DAQ did not
identify any uncontrolled or lightly
controlled facilities that were large
contributors to anthropogenic light
extinction at any of North Carolina’s
Class I areas that were missed by North
Carolina’s source selection process.
b. Consideration of the Four Factors:
North Carolina considered each of the
four CAA factors for BRPP and Domtar
and described how the four factors were
taken into consideration in selecting the
SO2 measures for inclusion in the
State’s LTS. For PCS, DAQ considered
the four CAA factors for its existing
measures for the affected units and
determined that there are no technically
feasible control measures beyond the
existing measures to further reduce SO2
emissions, and thus, no new measures
were evaluated using the four factors.
The following subsections summarize
the State’s evaluation of these facilities.
Additional detail is provided in Section
I.B. of the TSD.
i. BRPP: During 2017 to 2019, BRPP
implemented SO2 controls on existing
processes and replaced two coal-fired
boilers with new natural gas-fired
boilers to comply with a Special Order
by Consent (SOC) between the North
Carolina Environmental Management
Commission and BRPP.63 As a result of
the SOC, BRPP reduced actual annual
SO2 emissions by 93 percent (5,470 tons
per year) from 2017-level emissions.
The FFA focused on the No. 4 Power
Boiler, Riley Bark Boiler, and the Riley
Coal Boiler because these three boilers
comprise 90.2 percent of the BRPP’s
total 2019 actual emissions and 91.8
percent of the BRRP’s total 2028
projected SO2 emissions.64 These units
are equipped with wet flue gas
desulfurization (WFGD).65 66 To
complete the cost of compliance
analysis, BRPP evaluated replacing coal
with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) (all
three boilers) and adding dry sorbent
injection (DSI) (for the Riley Coal Boiler
and No. 4 Power Boiler). Table 7–54 of
the 2022 Plan shows that of the new
control measures considered, the lowest
cost effectiveness was $13,477 per ton of
SO2 removed using a 3.25 percent
interest rate and a 30-year equipment
life in the cost calculations. The State
notes that based on the FFA, BRPP
identified no cost-effective control
measures to further reduce SO2
emissions for the three boilers
evaluated.
Regarding the other statutory factors,
the State identifies the remaining useful
life of the source is estimated at more
than 25 years, and the equipment life of
the control options evaluated is 30 years
for both the DSI and ULSD options. The
State identifies that the time necessary
to comply for both the DSI and ULSD
options is at least three years to
accommodate time for corporate
funding approval, permitting, reengineering, and planned outage
scheduling. Regarding energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance, DAQ explains that adding
DSI would increase energy usage as well
as PM emissions from materials
handling and landfill operations and it
would also decrease the useful life of
the mill landfill and increase truck
traffic on local streets. Regarding ULSD,
no significant energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts were
identified.
Given the 93 percent decrease in SO2
emissions due to the SOC and the
State’s determination that there are no
cost-effective control SO2 measures
available based on a review of the four
factors, DAQ concluded that only
existing SO2 measures are necessary for
reasonable progress for the second
planning period at BRPP’s Riley Coal
Boiler, Riley Bark Boiler, and the No. 4
Power Boiler. No source-specific
changes were proposed to the North
Carolina SIP for BRPP because these
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
64 See
63 See
Section 7.8.1.1 of the 2022 Plan. North
Carolina and BRPP entered into the SOC on October
9, 2017, to implement facility process
modifications, upgrade existing control equipment,
as well as to install new control equipment to
comply with the Boiler Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standard by May 20,
2019, that cumulatively resulted in the control and
reduction of facility-wide SO2 emissions. The SOC
is available in Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2020–
0001 on www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
Table 7–48 on p. 271 of the 2022 Plan.
SO2 removal efficiency from the existing
control measures at the Riley Coal Boiler, Riley
Bark Boiler, and the No. 4 Power Boiler is
approximately 90 percent. See Section 7.8.1.1 of the
2022 Plan.
66 WFGD, also referred to as wet scrubbers, are a
type of control technology which removes SO2 and
other pollutants from gaseous exhaust streams.
WFGD is considered the most efficient way to
remove SO2 from gaseous waste streams if the
removal efficiency is optimized.
65 The
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67355
existing SO2 measures are already
incorporated into the SIP.67
ii. Domtar: The FFA for Domtar
focused on Hog Fuel Boiler 2 (‘‘HFB2’’)
because this unit is projected to emit
approximately 90 percent of the
facility’s total projected SO2 emissions
in 2028 (1,010 tpy out of 1,120 tpy).68
A hog fuel boiler at a paper mill
typically burns wood waste known as
‘‘hog fuel’’ to generate electricity for the
mill. In addition, Domtar currently
routes the majority of its
noncondensible waste gases through
HFB2. The sulfur compounds from the
waste gases accounts for the vast
majority of the SO2 emissions. HFB2
uses low sulfur fuels and inherent bark
scrubbing to control SO2 emissions. To
complete the cost of compliance
analysis, Domtar evaluated HFB2 for
WFGD and DSI.69 Table 7–58 of the
2022 Plan provides summary cost data
showing that the cost effectiveness of
the addition of a WFGD would be
$3,660/ton and the addition of DSI
would cost $22,092/ton of SO2 removed
using a 3.25 percent interest rate, a 30year equipment life, and assuming a 95
percent SO2 control efficiency for the
scrubber and a 50 percent control
efficiency for DSI.70
Regarding the other statutory factors,
the remaining useful life of HFB2 is 20
years or more, and the equipment life
assumed in the cost calculations is 30
years for both the WFGD and DSI
control options. The time necessary to
67 See 85 FR 74884 (November 24, 2020); 40 CFR
52.1770(d). The SIP contains specific SO2 permit
limits and associated operating restrictions;
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; and
testing compliance parameters from BRPP’s title V
permit (No. 08961T29) reflecting the requirements
of the SOC.
68 With respect to Domtar’s Hog Fuel Boiler 1
(‘‘HFB1’’), this unit is projected to emit 12 tpy SO2
in 2028. HFB1 was not included in the FFA because
it is currently equipped to burn only natural gas
and biomass with No. 2 fuel oil as a backup fuel.
Also, based on updated 2028 emissions projections
data, the unit will only contribute two percent of
the facility’s total SO2 emissions. In the docket to
this proposed rule is a legible copy of the May 12,
2020, letter from Domtar to DAQ provided in
Appendix G–2a of the Haze Plan.
69 In addition to the FFA, DAQ provided, as
supplemental information, that the use of a WFGD
on HFB2 would improve visibility by 0.03 deciview
and improve visual range by approximately 0.16
mile at Swanquarter and that the WFGD would
reduce Domtar’s contribution to total visibility
impairment at Swanquarter by 0.33 percent (0.152
Mm¥1). DAQ did not rely upon this supplemental
information for the Domtar FFA analysis and
conclusions.
70 In Appendix I of the Haze Plan, DAQ notes that
HFB2 is used as a control device for several process
gas streams at Domtar. DAQ checked EPA’s RACT/
BACT/LAER Clearinghouse available at https://
www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblcbasic-information and was unable to find
documentation of similar emissions units to HFB2
to compare costs of WFGD at this type of unit.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
67356
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
comply for both the WFGD and DSI
options is at least three years due to
corporate funding approval, permitting,
re-engineering, and planned outage
scheduling. Regarding energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance, additional electricity
would be needed to operate a DSI
system, and a DSI system would create
additional solid waste. Regarding the
WFGD, additional electricity and water
would be needed to run the system and
additional fan power would be required
overcome the additional pressure drop
through the WFGD. Other
environmental and energy impacts
associated with operating a WFGD
include generation and disposal of
wastewater.
DAQ concluded that there are no costeffective control SO2 measures available
based on a review of the four factors and
that only existing SO2 measures at HFB2
are necessary for reasonable progress
during the second planning period.
North Carolina identified permit
conditions reflecting these existing
measures in Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022
Plan for incorporation into the North
Carolina SIP. In its Commitment Letter,
DAQ committed to revise certain permit
conditions and submit, no later than one
year from the effective date of a final
conditional approval action (should
EPA finalize the proposed partial
conditional approval), a SIP revision
requesting incorporation of the revised
permit conditions and additional
existing specific permit conditions into
the SIP. DAQ’s commitments are
discussed in Section IV.C.3.b.ii of this
document.
iii. PCS: The FFA for PCS focused on
evaluating Sulfuric Acid Plants (SAPs)
5, 6, and 7 for additional SO2 controls
because these three SAPs accounted for
over 97 percent of total facility SO2
emissions in 2016 and are estimated to
account for 94 percent of the total
facility SO2 emissions in 2028. During
2017–2019, PCS implemented upgrades
to enhance the SO2 conversions in the
catalytic systems on SAPs 5, 6, and 7
pursuant to a consent decree with EPA
entered on February 26, 2015.71 Table
7–61 of the 2022 Plan summarizes the
SO2 emissions reductions from the
upgrades involving a dual absorption
process with cesium catalyst.72 PCS’
title V permit includes the SO2
emissions limits required under the
consent decree and prohibits relaxation
71 The consent decree entered by the Court on
February 26, 2015, is located in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking. This consent decree
terminated on April 3, 2023.
72 See Appendix G–3 of the 2022 Plan for
additional information regarding the dual
absorption process with cesium catalyst.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
of these emissions limits after the
consent decree has been terminated.
For PCS, the State evaluated whether
there are any technically feasible control
technologies available for SAPs 5, 6, and
7 at the facility beyond the current SO2
emissions control technology in place
(dual absorption process with cesium
catalyst) to further reduce SO2
emissions at these units and concluded
that there are none. Given this
conclusion and the SO2 reductions at
PCS due to the upgrades, DAQ
concluded that only the existing
measures for SAPs 5, 6, and 7 are
necessary for reasonable progress during
the second planning period. North
Carolina identified permit conditions
reflecting these existing measures in
Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan for
incorporation into the North Carolina
SIP.73 In its Commitment Letter, DAQ
committed to submit, no later than one
year from the effective date of a final
conditional approval action (should
EPA finalize the proposed partial
conditional approval), a SIP revision
requesting incorporation of additional
existing specific permit conditions into
the SIP. DAQ’s commitments are
discussed in Section IV.C.3.b.iii of this
document.
c. Documentation of Technical Basis:
With respect to emissions information
documentation pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section 4 of the 2022
Plan explains the State’s use of
emissions inventories to develop the
plan with additional documentation
provided in Appendix B. North
Carolina, through VISTAS, developed a
2011 statewide base year emissions
inventory which was used to project
emissions out to 2028, the end of the
second planning period. DAQ also
evaluated emissions data from 2017, the
year of the most recent triennial
emissions data available at the time of
the development of the 2022 Plan.74
DAQ also provided annual, statewide
anthropogenic SO2, NOX, and PM2.5
emissions data from 2011 through 2019
73 In an email dated March 28, 2024, DAQ
clarified that the text of Condition 2.5 A.1.p of PCS’
title V permit, proposed for adoption into the SIP
on page 289 of the Haze Plan, was inadvertently
excluded from the excerpts of permit conditions
provided in Section 7.8.3.2 of the Haze Plan under
‘‘Section 2.5 A.1.k through p—Emissions
Monitoring Requirements.’’
74 2017 emissions data is included in the
following tables and figures in the 2022 Plan: Table
7–41 (SO2) and 7–42 (NOX) for certain non-EGU
sources in North Carolina; Tables 13–9 (SO2), 13–
10 (NOX), 13–11 (PM2.5), 13–12 (PM10), 13–13 (VOC)
for anthropogenic statewide emissions of these
pollutants; Table 13–14 (SO2, NOX for all RPOs);
Figures 13–9 (SO2), 13–10 (NOX), 13–11 (PM2.5), 13–
12 (PM10), 13–13 (VOC)) for anthropogenic
statewide emissions of these pollutants; and Figures
13–14 and 13–15 (SO2, NOX for all RPOs).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for North Carolina in Tables 13–9, 13–
10, and 13–11, respectively, of the 2022
Plan.
With respect to modeling information
documentation pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii), Sections 5 and 6 of the
2022 Plan describe the modeling
methods used to develop the plan with
additional documentation provided in
Appendix E and results of the RPG
modeling in Section 8 of the plan.
Appendix D contains AoI analyses
documentation.
With respect to cost and engineering
information documentation pursuant to
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section 7.8 of
the 2022 Plan details the State’s analysis
of proposed FFAs for BRPP and Domtar
located in Appendix G which evaluated
the four factors, including the cost of
compliance factor, and provided
detailed cost calculations for potential
new control measures assessed as part
of the engineering analyses.
With respect to monitoring
information documentation pursuant to
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), the State
assessed baseline (2000–2004), current
(2014–2018), and natural visibility
conditions for North Carolina’s Class I
areas in Section 2 of the 2022 Plan with
supporting information located in
Appendix C.
Section I.D of the TSD provides a
more detailed summary of the State’s
assessment of the documentation of the
technical basis for the 2022 Plan under
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(v).
d. Assessment of the Five Additional
Factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv): With
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), North
Carolina considered each of the five
additional factors in developing the
State’s LTS and evaluated their
relevancy for the second planning
period. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), North Carolina
referenced the State’s emissions
inventory development for the base year
of 2011 as projected out to 2028 for the
requirement to assess emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to
address Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI). With
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B),
North Carolina summarized the State’s
existing regulations that mitigate the
impacts of construction activities by
requiring control of erosion, siltation,
and pollution from construction
activities and requiring subject facilities
to control PM from fugitive dust
emission sources generated within plant
boundaries.75 With respect to 40 CFR
75 DAQ explained that fine soils were a relatively
minor contributor to visibility impairment on the 20
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), North Carolina
summarized existing and planned
source retirements in Section 7.2.2 and
Section 8.3.5 of the 2022 Plan. With
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D),
North Carolina considered the State’s
Guidelines for Managing Smoke from
Forestry Burning Operations to mitigate
PM2.5 emissions and regional haze
impacts associated with prescribed
burning.76 With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), North Carolina
pointed to the development and
evaluation of the 2028 RPGs for the
North Carolina Class I areas which
reflect the net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the
second period. Section I.C of the TSD
provides a more detailed summary of
the State’s assessment of the five
additional factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv).
e. Interstate Consultation: North
Carolina consulted with states 77 and
RPOs that identified North Carolina
sources as impacting those states’ (or
states within the RPOs’) Class I areas,
and DAQ consulted with the 10 states
with one or more sources exceeding
North Carolina’s PSAT threshold at one
or more of North Carolina’s Class I
areas.
i. State/RPOs Requesting Consultation
with North Carolina:
a. MANE–VU Ask: The following
summarizes the conclusions of
consultation related to the MANE–VU
Ask for North Carolina.78 Section I.E of
the TSD provides a more detailed
summary of the State’s interstate
consultation pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii).
The MANE–VU Ask for states outside
of MANE–VU addresses both statewide
impacts to visibility and specific
emissions units’ visibility impacts.
States that contributed greater than or
equal to two percent of the visibility
percent most impaired days at the Class I areas in
North Carolina during the baseline period of 2000–
2004.
76 DAQ notes that elemental carbon is the primary
visibility impairing pollutant related to wildfires,
prescribed wildland fires, and agricultural burning.
Elemental carbon is a relatively minor contributor
to visibility impairment on the 20 percent most
impaired days from the base period (2000–2004)
through 2018 at the Class I areas in North Carolina
based on IMPROVE monitoring data as discussed in
Section 2.4 of the 2022 Plan.
77 New Hampshire and New Jersey are the only
states that requested consultation with North
Carolina.
78 MANE–VU refers to the emission reduction
measures identified in other states as being
necessary to make reasonable progress as ‘‘Asks.’’
The MANE–VU Ask to states outside of the MANE–
VU Region is available at: https://otcair.org/
manevu/Upload/Publication/Formal%20Actions/
MANE-VU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20
Final%208-25-2017.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
impairment to a Class I area and had an
average mass impact of over one percent
(0.01 microgram per cubic meter) on a
statewide basis were identified for
consultation and included in the InterRPO Ask. Additionally, any emissions
units having the potential for a 3.0
Mm¥1 or greater light extinction impact
on any MANE–VU Class I area based on
CALPUFF modeling of 2011 SO2 and
NOX emissions were identified for
consultation in the MANE–VU Ask.
In a letter dated October 16, 2017,
MANE–VU requested consultation with
North Carolina on the basis that North
Carolina was identified as impacting
MANE–VU Class I area(s) on both a
statewide basis and emission unit basis.
On a statewide basis, MANE–VU
claimed that North Carolina’s percent
mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate
contributions from North Carolina to
MANE–VU Class I areas in 2015 exceeds
the RPO’s two percent threshold for five
Class I areas in MANE–VU.79 On an
emissions unit basis, the No.1 Power
Boiler at North Carolina’s Kapstone
Kraft Corporation (‘‘Kapstone’’) was
identified as having the potential to
exceed the 3.0 Mm¥1 or greater
visibility impact threshold set by
MANE–VU for any Class I area in the
MANE–VU region.80
Regarding statewide visibility impacts
to MANE–VU Class I areas, North
Carolina disagreed with MANE–VU that
North Carolina’s statewide emissions
are impacting visibility at any MANE–
VU Class I areas. North Carolina’s
viewpoints are reflected in the January
27, 2018, letter from VISTAS to MANE–
VU. To resolve the disagreement, North
Carolina sent a response letter on
February 16, 2018, to MANE–VU and
noted several disagreements with
MANE–VU’s analysis.
Regarding Kapstone’s visibility
impacts to MANE–VU Class I areas, in
a letter dated February 16, 2018, DAQ
clarified the status of the No. 1 Power
Boiler at KapStone that was initially
identified in a September 5, 2017,
document from MANE–VU as having
the potential for a maximum 6.0 Mm¥1
light extinction impact on a MANE–VU
Class I area based on CALPUFF
modeling of the facility’s 2011 SO2 and
NOX emissions.81 DAQ reviewed the
79 See Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix F–4 of the
Haze Plan.
80 The August 25, 2017, MANE–VU document
identifying maximum potential visibility impacts
from the No. 1 Power Boiler at Kapstone Kraft
Corporation in North Carolina is located at: https://
otcair.org/manevu/Upload/Publication/Formal%20
Actions/MANE-VU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20
Final%208-25-2017.pdf.
81 The September 5. 2017, MANE–VU document,
‘‘Selection of States for MANE–VU Regional Haze
Consultation (2018)’’, is available at: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67357
modeling documentation and found that
the maximum potential light extinction
impact modeled for the power boiler
was 0.28 Mm¥1 for MANE–VU Class I
areas and 0.47 Mm¥1 for Class I areas
near the MANE–VU region shown in
Table 1 of the 2018 letter. Based on
discussions with MANE–VU
representatives, there was agreement
that the initial light extinction values
shown in Table l of the 2018 letter are
correct for the No. 1 Power Boiler and
that the boiler should not be included
in the MANE–VU Ask.
North Carolina documented the
State’s responses and viewpoints with
respect to the MANE–VU Ask in Section
10 and Appendix F–4 of the 2022 Plan.
North Carolina proposes that it fulfilled
the consultation requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) by the State’s active
participation in the MANE–VU
consultation process and by the State’s
documented responses to MANE–VU.
Thus, DAQ determined that no further
action is required under the RHR to
address MANE–VU’s requests.
b. Proposed Plan Comments from
MANE–VU, New Hampshire, and New
Jersey: MANE–VU, New Hampshire, and
New Jersey provided written comments
on the North Carolina haze plan
proposed for public comment at the
State level.82 In total, there are five
MANE–VU Inter-RPO Asks for states
outside of the MANE–VU Region.
Regarding Asks 1, 4, and 5, MANE–VU,
New Hampshire, and New Jersey
acknowledged in their comments on the
North Carolina prehearing plan that the
existing measures in North Carolina
address these three asks. Regarding Ask
2, MANE–VU determined that this ask
does not apply to North Carolina.
Regarding Ask 3, DAQ reviewed the
MANE–VU, New Hampshire, and New
Jersey recommendations for the State to
adopt an ultra-low sulfur fuel (ULSF) oil
standard consistent with Ask 3 and
explained in the 2022 Plan why it
would not be reasonable to do so. DAQ
evaluated residual and distillate oil use
in North Carolina and concluded that
adopting an ULSF standard would
provide ‘‘very little’’ reduction in SO2
emissions or any noticeable
improvement in visibility in Class I
areas in North Carolina and in
downwind states.
otcair.org/manevuUpload/Publication/Reports/
MANE-VU%20Contributing%20State%20
Analysis%20Final.pdf.
82 MANE–VU, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
submitted a letter dated October 12, 2021, and New
Jersey also submitted a letter dated October 15,
2021, providing comments on North Carolina’s
proposed haze plan. These letters are included in
Appendix I of the 2022 Plan.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
67358
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
ii. North Carolina’s Requests for
Consultation with Other States:
Consultation with other states with
sources contributing to regional haze at
North Carolina’s Class I areas is
discussed in Section 10 and Appendix
F of the 2022 Plan. As listed in Tables
7–37 and 7–38 of the 2022 Plan, North
Carolina requested a FFA of 16 sources
in 10 other states because these sources
exceeded the State’s sulfate PSAT
threshold at one or more of North
Carolina’s Class I areas.83 DAQ
documented the responses from the 10
states in Section 10.1.1 of the 2022 Plan.
Section I.E.3 of the TSD provides more
details regarding the consultation
related to these sources.
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA has reviewed
DAQ’s source selection criteria,
consideration of the four factors,
determinations of controls necessary for
reasonable progress, submitted permit
conditions, documentation of technical
basis, interstate consultation, and
consideration of the five additional
factors. Based on this review, EPA finds
that North Carolina’s LTS satisfies 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2) but for concerns with
the legal and practicable enforceability
of certain Domtar and PCS permit
conditions identified for incorporation
into the SIP. As discussed above, North
Carolina has committed to provide EPA
with a SIP submission no later than one
year from the effective date of a final
conditional approval action that would
adequately address the legal and
practicable enforceability concerns
identified in this document. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the sections of the Haze Plan
addressing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). If North
Carolina submits the required SIP
revision by the specified deadline and
EPA approves the submission, then the
identified enforceability concerns will
be cured and the conditional approval
of the sections of the Haze Plan
addressing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) will be
converted to a full approval. Sections
IV.C.3.b.ii and IV.C.3.b.iii of this
document discuss the enforceability
concerns with the Domtar and PCS
83 The 16 sources are: Entergy Arkansas IncIndependence Plant in Arkansas; Plant Bowen in
Georgia; Gibson and Indiana Michigan Power DBA
AEP Rockport in Indiana; Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA)-Shawnee in Kentucky; New
Madrid Power Plant-Marston in Missouri; Cardinal
Power Plant—Cardinal Operating Company
(Cardinal Power Plant); Duke Energy Ohio—Wm. H.
Zimmer Station (Duke-Zimmer); and General James
M. Gavin Power Plant (Gavin Power Plant) in Ohio;
Homer City Gen LP/Center and Genon NE Mgmt
Co/Keystone Station in Pennsylvania; Eastman and
TVA-Cumberland in Tennessee; Jewell Coke
Company LLP in Virginia; and Allegheny—Harrison
and Monongahela—Pleasants Power Station in West
Virginia. North Carolina requested FFAs of nonVISTAS sources through VISTAS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
permit conditions, respectively, and
North Carolina’s commitments to
resolve these concerns. Although EPA
finds that North Carolina’s LTS satisfies
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) but for the
enforceability concerns with certain
Domtar and PCS permit conditions
identified for incorporation into the SIP,
EPA is soliciting comment on the
adequacy of DAQ’s analyses, including
the FFAs, determination of controls
necessary for reasonable progress, and
the adequacy of the submitted permit
conditions, including associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting, and whether the State has met
the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i) through (iv).
a. Source Selection Criteria: EPA
finds that North Carolina’s source
selection was reasonable. The Haze Plan
supports this finding, because it
contains information such as Appendix
C which includes monitoring and
meteorological data used to support
selection of sources; Appendix D which
provides documentation supporting the
AoI analyses (first step of the State’s
source selection process); and Appendix
E which details the visibility and source
apportionment data used and results
from the PSAT modeling (second step of
the State’s source selection process).
However, EPA finds this source
selection requirement is not separable
from the overarching requirement of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2) to establish a LTS. As
explained previously in this document,
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve North Carolina’s LTS due to
concerns with the legal and practical
enforceability of certain permit
conditions identified in the Haze Plan
for incorporation into the SIP.
Accordingly, EPA finds that the Haze
Plan will only meet all requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) if North Carolina
meets its commitment to submit the
corrective SIP revision described in its
Commitment Letter no later than one
year from the effective date of a final
conditional approval action, should
EPA finalize the proposed partial
conditional approval, and EPA approves
that SIP revision. North Carolina
included a description of the criteria
that the State used to determine which
sources the State evaluated for
emissions controls.
EPA also finds that North Carolina’s
source selection resulted in a reasonable
set of sources contributing to visibility
impairment at Class I areas affected by
North Carolina’s sources. AoI and PSAT
are acceptable and well-established
methods for selecting sources for a
control analysis and they enable the
identification of the sources that have
the largest impacts on visibility at Class
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I areas in North Carolina and
neighboring states,84 and the State
identified three North Carolina sources
for a control evaluation and identified
16 out-of-state sources for which they
requested a control evaluation through
interstate consultation. Additionally,
statewide SO2 emissions are expected to
decrease in the second planning period
from 2019 levels of 34,712 tpy SO2 to
projected 2028 levels of 32,644 tpy SO2
(a six percent reduction) which
occurred after a 63 percent decrease in
statewide SO2 emissions from 2011 to
2018 by 74,830 tpy SO2, and statewide
NOX emissions are expected to decrease
in the second planning period from
2019 levels of 223,264 tpy NOX to
projected 2028 levels of 138,986 tpy
NOX (approximately a 38 percent
reduction) which occurred after a 37
percent decrease in statewide NOX
emissions from 2011 to 2018 by 137,820
tpy NOX.85 Additional emissions
reductions from permanent shutdowns
which have not been reflected in the
2028 emissions projections and 2028
RPGs are 204 tons of SO2 and 208 tons
of SO2 based on 2016 actual and
projected 2028 SO2 emissions,
respectively, and 248 tons of NOX and
287 tons of NOX based on 2016 and
projected 2028 NOX emissions,
respectively. Visibility conditions in
North Carolina’s Class I areas in 2028
are estimated to improve since the
2000–2004 baseline period by 14.1
deciviews (Great Smoky Mountains and
Joyce Kilmer), 13.8 deciviews (Linville
Gorge), 14.8 deciviews (Shining Rock),
and 8.5 deciviews (Swanquarter).86
Specific to the second planning period,
visibility conditions in North Carolina’s
Class I areas in 2028 are estimated to
improve since the 2014–2018 period by
2.2 deciviews (Great Smoky Mountains,
Joyce Kilmer, Linville Gorge, Shining
Rock), and 1.0 deciview (Swanquarter).
These projected second planning period
visibility improvements represent
approximately 87 30 percent (Great
84 The State used the AoI process because it
identifies the largest sources with potential
visibility impacts to Class I areas and then used
sophisticated photochemical source apportionment
modeling to identify specific sources for control
evaluations. See also 2019 Guidance, pp. 12–13.
85 North Carolina’s statewide emissions of SO
2
and NOX decreased during the period from 2011 to
2018 from 118,721 tpy SO2 to 43,891 tpy SO2 and
decreased from 369,496 to 231,676 tpy NOX. See
Tables 13–9 and 13–10 of the Haze Plan.
86 See Table 8–1 of the Haze Plan.
87 See visibility data for the 20 percent most
impaired days data from Table 8–1 of the Haze
Plan. Percentage of progress toward natural
conditions = [((2014–2018 IMPROVE data)¥(2028
RPG))/((2014–2018 IMPROVE data)¥(Natural
visibility conditions))] × 100. Example calculation
for Great Smoky Mountains: [(17.21¥15.03)/
(17.21¥10.05)] × 100 = 30.4 percent.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer); 32
percent (Linville Gorge), 40 percent
(Shining Rock), and 16 percent
(Swanquarter) of the additional progress
needed to reach natural conditions at
each Class I area. Additionally, using
the most recently available 20 percent
most impaired days IMPROVE data
(2018–2022) 88 for the 20 percent most
impaired days,89 in the first four years
of the second planning period, North
Carolina’s Class I areas have already
achieved 25 percent (Great Smoky
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer),90 25
percent (Linville Gorge), 27 percent
(Shining Rock), and 21 percent
(Swanquarter) of the remaining progress
needed to reach natural conditions.
Also, North Carolina is not contributing
to visibility impairment at any Class I
areas above the URP, and the State
appropriately focused on controlling
point source SO2 emissions based on
data showing ammonium sulfate is the
dominant visibility impairing pollutant
at the North Carolina Class I areas.
Although North Carolina did not
select any Duke Energy sources for
analysis, EPA conducted further review
of five Duke Energy facilities to evaluate
the reasonableness of North Carolina’s
source selection—DEC—Belews Creek
Steam Station (DEC-Belews Creek),
DEC—Cliffside Steam Station (DECCliffside), DEC-Marshall, Duke Energy
Progress, LLC (DEP)—Mayo Electric
Generating Plant (DEP-Mayo), and
DEP—Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
(DEP-Roxboro). EPA identified these
five facilities for further review because,
88 The 2018–2022 IMPROVE data for the 20
percent most impaired days was obtained from
https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/rhrsummary-data/ under the header ‘‘Means for
Impairment Metric:’’. The IMPROVE data includes
visibility monitoring data for each Class I area. This
data was filtered for each Class I area, listed as
‘‘GRSM1’’ (Great Smoky Mountains whose data also
represents Joyce Kilmer), ‘‘LIGO1’’ (Linville Gorge),
‘‘SHRO1’’ (Shining Rock), ‘‘SWAN1’’
(Swanquarter), respectively, (in column ‘‘A’’, titled
‘‘site’’). Then data was filtered for the years 2018
through 2022 (using column ‘‘B’’ titled ‘‘year’’).
These data points were then filtered for the 20
percent most impaired days, indicated by ‘‘90’’ (in
column ‘‘C’’ titled ‘‘impairment_Group’’). The
resulting data points for each North Carolina Class
I area within the ‘‘haze_dv’’ column ‘‘AK’’,
corresponding to each of the five years, were
averaged to determine the 20 percent most impaired
days for the 2018–2022 five-year period. The 2018–
2022 IMPROVE data for North Carolina’s Class I
areas are: 15.4 deciviews (Great Smoky Mountains
and Joyce Kilmer), 14.7 deciviews (Linville Gorge),
14.0 deciviews (Shining Rock), and 14.9 deciviews
(Swanquarter).
89 The 2014–2018 IMPROVE data was provided
by North Carolina in Table 8–1 of the Haze Plan.
90 Percentage of progress toward natural
conditions = [((2014–2018 IMPROVE data)¥(2018–
2022 IMPROVE data))/((2014–2018 IMPROVE
data)¥(Natural visibility conditions))] ×100.
Example calculation for Great Smoky Mountains:
[(17.21¥15.4)/(17.21¥10.05)] × 100 = 25 percent.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
in the VISTAS AoI analysis, DECBelews Creek, DEC-Cliffside, and DECMarshall ranked in the top 10 facility
sulfate impacts at Shining Rock; DECBelews Creek and DEC-Cliffside ranked
in the top 10 facility sulfate impacts at
Linville Gorge; DEP-Roxboro ranked in
the top 10 facility sulfate impacts at
Swanquarter; DEP-Roxboro ranked in
the top 10 facility sulfate impacts at
James River Face in Virginia; and DEPMayo ranked in the top 20 facility
sulfate impacts at James River Face. EPA
assessed whether these five Duke
Energy facilities are effectively
controlled for SO2 91 and whether any
cost-effective new emissions reduction
measures for SO2 would have likely
resulted from a FFA had these sources
met the State’s source selection criteria.
The 2019 Guidance provides several
scenarios in which EPA believes it may
be reasonable for a state not to select a
particular source for further analysis.
Two of these scenarios are applicable to
the five Duke facilities—a coal-fired
EGU that has add-on flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) and meets the
applicable alternative SO2 emission
limit of 0.2 pound (lb) per million
British Thermal Units (MMBtu) (lb/
MMBtu) in the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS) rule for power
plants; 92 and an EGU that, during the
first period, installed a FGD system that
operates year-round with an
effectiveness of at least 90 percent. The
2019 Guidance states that in both cases,
it is unlikely that an analysis of control
measures for a source already equipped
with a scrubber and meeting a 0.20 lb/
MMBtu limit or greater than 90 percent
efficiency would conclude that even
more stringent control of SO2 is
necessary to make reasonable progress.
See 2019 Guidance at 23.
Each of the five Duke sources are
equipped with WFGD and are subject to
the alternative SO2 emissions limit from
the MATS rule. EPA evaluated the
WFGD SO2 control efficiencies at each
of the coal-fired units at these five
sources as follows: DEC-Belews Creek
(Units 1, 2); DEC-Cliffside (Units 5 and
6); DEC-Marshall (Units 1–4); DEP-Mayo
(Units 1A and 1B); DEP-Roxboro (Units
1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B). Data from 2017–
2021 indicate that existing WFGD
systems at these units at the five Duke
facilities routinely achieve 92 to 98
percent SO2 removal efficiencies with
91 EPA did not evaluate NO controls for these
X
facilities because EPA proposes to agree with North
Carolina’s conclusion that ammonium sulfate
continues to be the dominant visibility impairing
pollutant at North Carolina’s Class I areas. See
Section IV.C.2.a of this notice.
92 The MATS rule is located at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart UUUUU.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67359
some month-to-month variation in
performance.93 Because these coal units
are subject to the MATS alternative SO2
emission limit of 0.2 lb/MMBtu and are
equipped with WFGD that routinely
achieve a high SO2 control effectiveness,
it reasonable to assume that a FFA
would likely result in the conclusion
that no further controls are necessary.
b. Consideration of the Four CAA
Factors: EPA finds that North Carolina
reasonably evaluated and determined,
under the four CAA factors, the
emission reduction measures for the
selected sources that are necessary to
make reasonable progress but for the
concerns with the legal and practicable
enforceability of certain Domtar and
PCS permit conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP for the
reasons discussed below.94
i. BRPP: Regarding BRPP, EPA finds
that DAQ’s conclusions that existing
SO2 measures at BRPP’s Riley Coal
Boiler, Riley Bark Boiler, and the No. 4
Power Boiler are necessary for
reasonable progress for the second
planning period to be reasonable. The
State evaluated available and
technically feasible SO2 controls that
were based on, where applicable,
estimated values of capital costs,
annualized costs, and cost per ton of
emission reductions, and were
consistent with recommendations in
EPA’s ‘‘Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual’’ (Cost Manual).95 WFGD with
approximately a 90 percent control
efficiency is an existing SO2 control for
these units, and the recently installed
control measures are estimated to
reduce the 2028 projected emissions for
the facility from approximately 5,875
tons to 485 tons of SO2.96 Additionally,
EPA finds that DAQ reasonably
concluded that the addition of DSI
controls at $13,477/ton and $14,752/ton
for the Riley Coal Boiler and No. 4
power Boiler, respectively, and the
ULSD at over $126,000/ton for all three
units, are not necessary to make
reasonable progress. The associated
93 This data is available through EPA’s Clean Air
Markets Program at: https://campd.epa.gov/data. A
summary of the WFGD control efficiency data for
the years 2017–2022 for DEC-Belews Creek (Units
1, 2); DEC-Cliffside (Units 5 and 6); DEC-Marshall
(Units 1–4); DEP-Mayo (Units 1A and 1B); and DEPRoxboro (Units 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B) is compiled
in a spreadsheet which is included in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
94 See also Section I.B of the TSD for additional
details regarding North Carolina’s FFAs.
95 EPA’s Cost Manual is available at: https://
www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-airpollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidanceair-pollution.
96 Tables 7–5 and 7–26 of the 2022 Plan display
2028 BRPP SO2 emissions projections as 405 tpy.
Table 7–49 of the 2022 Plan identifies the 2028
BRPP SO2 emissions projections as 485 tpy.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
67360
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
existing SO2 emissions limits for these
boilers, summarized in Table 7–48 of
the 2022 Plan, are already adopted into
the North Carolina SIP effective
November 24, 2020.97
ii. Domtar: Regarding Domtar, EPA
finds that DAQ’s exclusion of HFB1
from FFA review is reasonable because
it is equipped to only burn natural gas
and biomass with No. 2 fuel oil as a
backup unit and is projected to emit 12
tpy of SO2 in 2028, which is only one
percent of Domtar’s total SO2 emissions.
EPA also finds that DAQ’s control
analysis and conclusions that the
existing SO2 measures at Domtar’s HFB2
are necessary for reasonable progress for
the second planning period are
reasonable, except for EPA’s concerns
with the legal and practicable
enforceability of certain permit
conditions identified for incorporation
into the SIP from Domtar’s title V
permit. The State evaluated available
and technically feasible SO2 control
measures for HFB2 that were based on,
where applicable, estimated values of
capital costs, annualized costs, and cost
per ton of emission reductions prepared
according to EPA’s Cost Manual. The
cost effectiveness of DSI is $22,092/ton
and the cost effectiveness of the WFGD
is $3,660/ton using a conservative 3.25
percent interest rate.98
North Carolina’s LTS contains
deficiencies that preclude full approval
and, based on the State’s commitment to
address these concerns, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the
LTS portion of the Haze Plan. As
discussed in Section III of this
document, each state’s regional haze SIP
must include a LTS that contains
enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. See CAA section
169A(b)(2), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
Furthermore, CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires SIPs to ‘‘include enforceable
conditions and other control measures,
means or techniques . . . as may be
necessary or appropriate’’ to meet the
requirements of the Act. As EPA has
repeatedly stated, to be enforceable, a
CAA requirement must be legally and
practically enforceable, and there is a
considerable body of applicable EPA
rules, EPA guidance, and EPA-approved
state practices on the topic of
practicably enforceable emission
97 See 85 FR 74884 (November 24, 2020) available
at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-202011-24/pdf/2020-25464.pdf.
98 See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRIME for
historical interest rates. As of July 22, 2024, the
current bank prime interest rate is 8.5 percent. (See:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
limits.99 Typically, a primary
mechanism for ensuring that a SIP
provision is legally and practicably
enforceable is for a state to impose
sufficient monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting (MRR) requirements on
affected sources.
EPA’s rules regarding the preparation,
adoption, and submittal of SIPs at 40
CFR part 51 also contain requirements
concerning the enforceability of SIP
emission limits. For example, SIPs must
include enforceable test methods for
each emission limit included in the
plan. See 40 CFR 51.212. SIPs must also
provide legally enforceable methods
requiring owners or operators of
stationary sources to maintain records of
and periodically report to the State
information regarding the nature and
number of emissions from a stationary
source and other information as it may
be necessary for a state to determine if
the source is in compliance with the
control strategy. See 40 CFR 51.211.
Furthermore, the SIP completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V
state that complete SIPs contain
‘‘evidence that the plan contains
emission limitations, work practice
standards and recordkeeping/reporting
requirements, where necessary, to
ensure emission levels’’ and
‘‘compliance/enforcement strategies,
including how compliance will be
determined in practice.’’ See 40 CFR
51.103; 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,
sections 2.2(g), (h).
North Carolina’s SIP revision relies on
certain existing emission limits in the
title V permit for Domtar to achieve
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. These emission
limits must be legally and practically
enforceable, as required under sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 169A(b)(2) of the Act,
and the SIP must satisfy EPA’s rules
regarding the enforceability of SIP
emission limits. Section 7.8.3.1 of the
Haze Plan identifies SO2 emission limits
from Conditions 2.1 A.4 and 2.1 A.7 of
Domtar title V Air Quality Permit No.
04291T51 for incorporation into the SIP
as well as several other provisions in
these Conditions, including A.4.c.100
99 See, e.g., 57 FR 13497, 13567 (April 16, 1992)
(explaining principles, including enforceability, to
which SIPs and implementing instruments must
adhere to help assure that planned emission
reductions will be achieved); 80 FR 33840, 33843,
33865, 33890, 33891, 33903 (June 12, 2015)
(discussing the requirement that SIP emission limits
must be practicably enforceable and stating that
‘‘[t]he term practically enforceable means, in the
context of a SIP emission limitation, that the
limitation is enforceable as a practical matter (e.g.,
contains appropriate averaging times, compliance
verification procedures and recordkeeping
requirements).’’
100 The State requested in the Haze Plan for EPA
to incorporate specific permit conditions from
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The conditions listed in italics under
Section 7.8.3.1 are identified for
incorporation into the SIP with the
exception of any text marked in
strikeout.
Condition 2.1 A.4.a contains an SO2
emission limit of 2.3 lbs/MMBtu heat
input when firing wood or natural gas.
This limit also applies when burning
waste gases with wood and/or natural
gas. However, the SIP revision does not
include a methodology to evaluate
compliance with the 2.3 lbs/MMBtu
emission limit. EPA considers the lack
of a compliance methodology as a
deficiency because it undermines the
enforceability of the emission limit. In
its Commitment Letter, North Carolina
has committed to address this concern
by revising Condition 2.1 A.4 of Permit
No. 04291T51 to include a condition
containing a procedure to monitor and
evaluate compliance with the SO2
emission limit of 2.3 lbs/MMBtu in
Condition 2.1 A.4.a and submitting a
SIP revision, no later than one year from
the effective date of a final conditional
approval action (should EPA finalize the
proposed partial conditional approval),
requesting incorporation of the
condition into the SIP.
Condition 2.1 A.4.c states that
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting are not required for the
combustion of wood residue and natural
gas. However, as discussed above, these
SIP-approved emission limits must have
adequate monitoring, recordkeeping,
and periodic reporting requirements in
order to be legally and practicably
enforceable, and the SIP must satisfy
EPA’s rules regarding the enforceability
of SIP emission limits which require
monitoring, recordkeeping, and periodic
reporting. To address this concern,
North Carolina submitted a letter dated
July 30, 2024, withdrawing from the
Haze Plan the State’s request for EPA to
incorporate Condition 2.1 A.4.c into the
SIP,101 and in its Commitment Letter,
North Carolina committed to submit a
Domtar title V Air Quality Permit No. 04291T50.
However, this permit was superseded after EPA
received the SIP revision. In an email dated March
28, 2024, DAQ asks EPA to instead incorporate the
same terms from the current Domtar title V permit
(DAQ Air Quality Permit No. 04291T51) and
confirms that the text of the permit conditions
identified for incorporation into the SIP in Section
7.8.3.1 of the Haze Plan from Permit No. 04291T50
has not changed. The March 28, 2024, email and
the current Domtar permit are included in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
101 In a July 30, 2024, letter, DAQ withdrew the
State’s request for EPA to incorporate Condition 2.1
A.4.c from Domtar Paper Company’s title V air
permit for its Plymouth facility into the North
Carolina SIP. This request appeared in Section
7.8.3.l of the Haze Plan narrative on pages 284–285.
The July 30, 2024, letter of withdrawal is included
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SIP revision, no later than one year from
the effective date of a final conditional
approval action (should EPA finalize the
proposed partial conditional approval),
requesting incorporation of Conditions 4
I.B., P, and X into the SIP.102
Condition 2.1 A.7.a contains an SO2
emission limit of 0.80 lb/MMBtu heat
input when firing oil and wood/lignin.
Condition 2.1 A.7 identifies fuel
sampling and analysis as the method to
evaluate compliance with the 0.80 lb/
MMBtu emission limit; however, the
Condition does not identify a method to
convert fuel sampling and analysis data
into SO2 emissions values comparable
with the emission limit. This emission
limit is not practicably enforceable for
SIP purposes without inclusion of a
corresponding conversion methodology.
In its Commitment Letter, North
Carolina has committed to address this
concern by revising Condition 2.1 A.6
and/or Condition 2.1 A.7 of Permit No.
04291T51 to include a condition
containing a procedure to monitor and
evaluate compliance with the SO2
emission limit of 0.80 lb/MMBtu in
Condition 2.1 A.7.a and submitting a
SIP revision, no later than one year from
the effective date of a final conditional
approval action (should EPA finalize the
proposed partial conditional approval),
requesting incorporation of the
monitoring condition into the SIP.
Given the concerns identified above,
and North Carolina’s Commitment
Letter containing the aforementioned
commitments to address these identified
concerns related to Domtar, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the
sections of the Haze Plan addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
(f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4).
iii. PCS: Regarding PCS, EPA finds
that DAQ’s control analysis and
conclusions that the existing SO2
measures at PCS’ SAPs 5, 6, and 7 are
necessary for reasonable progress for the
second planning period are reasonable,
except for EPA’s concerns with the legal
and practicable enforceability of certain
permit conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP from PCS’
title V permit. The State adequately
demonstrated that there are no
102 North Carolina’s SIP contains a recordkeeping
provision at 15 NCAC 02D .0605 that requires the
owner or operator of a source subject to the
requirements of 15 NCAC 02D or 02Q, such as
Domtar, to maintain for two years ‘‘(1) records
detailing malfunctions pursuant to 15A NCAC 02D
.0535; (2) records of testing conducted pursuant to
rules in Subchapter 02D; (3) records of monitoring
conducted pursuant to Subchapters 02D or 02Q of
this Chapter; (4) records detailing activities relating
to compliance schedules in this Subchapter [02D];
and (5) for unpermitted sources, records needed to
determine compliance with rules in Subchapters
02D or 02Q of this Chapter.’’ See 15 NCAC 02D
.0605(a), (e).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
technically feasible SO2 control
measures for sulfuric acid plants beyond
dual absorption process with cesium
catalyst, the current SO2 control
measure at SAPs 5, 6, and 7.
North Carolina’s SIP revision relies on
certain existing emission limits in the
title V permit for PCS to achieve
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. However, EPA
finds that these emission limits are not
legally and practicably enforceable. As
discussed above, these emission limits
must be legally and practically
enforceable, as required under sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 169A(b)(2) of the Act,
and the SIP must satisfy EPA’s rules
regarding the enforceability of SIP
emission limits. Section 7.8.3.2 of the
Haze Plan identifies SO2 emission limits
from Condition 2.4 A.1 of PCS title V
Air Quality Permit No. 04176T72 for
incorporation into the SIP as well as
several other provisions in Condition
2.4 A.1, including Conditions A.1.m and
A.1.o.103 104 The conditions listed in
italics under Section 7.8.3.2 are
identified for incorporation into the SIP
with the exception of any text marked
in strikeout. A summary of EPA’s
finding and North Carolina’s
commitment to address the lack of
enforceability of these emission limits is
found below.
The monitoring provision in
Condition 2.4 A.1.m requires the
permittee to monitor SO2 emissions in
accordance with the CEMS Plan
(Attachment 2 to the permit). However,
the 2022 Plan excludes Attachment 2
and the reference to Attachment 2 from
the request to incorporate Condition 2.4
A.1.m into the SIP. Similarly, the first
sentence of the monitoring provision in
103 Condition 2.4 A.1 of Air Quality Permit No.
04176T72 includes the SO2 emissions limits for
Sulfuric Acid Plants Nos. 5, 6, and 7 required under
a February 26, 2015, consent decree between EPA
and PCS that terminated on April 3, 2023. The
consent decree and termination order are in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking. Although the
consent decree is terminated, the emission limits
‘‘shall never be relaxed.’’ See Condition 2.4 A.1.f.
104 The statement in the first bullet on p. 288 of
the 2022 Plan that reads ‘‘Section 2.5 A.1.b through
d, f’’ is correct. The paragraph letters ‘‘a’’, ‘‘b’’, and
‘‘c’’ in the italicized text are incorrect and should
read ‘‘b’’, ‘‘c’’, and ‘‘d’’, respectively. The State
requested in the Haze Plan for EPA to incorporate
specific permit conditions from PCS title V Air
Quality Permit No. 04176T66 into the SIP.
However, this permit was superseded after EPA
received the SIP revision. In an email dated July 30,
2024, DAQ asks EPA to incorporate the same terms
from the current PCS title V permit (DAQ Air
Quality Permit No. 04176T72). The email confirms
that the text of the permit conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP in Section 7.8.3.2 of the
Haze Plan from Permit No. 04176T66 has not
changed with the exception of the renumbering of
Section 2.5 to Section 2.4 and the correction of a
typographical error to a cross-reference in condition
2.5 A.1.p (currently 2.4 A.1.p) in the PCS permit.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67361
Condition 2.4 A.1.o requires the
permittee to use analyzer data to
determine 3-hour rolling averages and
365-day rolling averages per Attachment
2, and the second sentence requires the
permittee to round calculations
associated with these averages using the
procedures specified in Attachment 2.
However, the 2022 Plan excludes the
second sentence and the reference to
Attachment 2 in the first sentence from
the request to incorporate Condition 2.4
A.1.o into the SIP. EPA considers this
exclusion of monitoring requirements
from Conditions 2.4 A.1.m and 2.4 A.1.o
to be a deficiency because the lack of
monitoring requirements undermines
the enforceability of the SO2 emission
limits identified for incorporation into
the SIP. In its Commitment Letter, North
Carolina has committed to address these
concerns by submitting, no later than
one year from the effective date of a
final conditional approval action
(should EPA finalize the proposed
partial conditional approval), a SIP
revision requesting incorporation of
Conditions 2.4 A.1.m (with the
exception of Condition 2.4 A.1.m.v) and
2.4 A.1.o in its entirety and Attachment
2 of Permit No. 04176T72 into the SIP.
The SIP revision does not identify any
reporting requirements from title V
permit No. 04176T72 for incorporation
into the SIP. As discussed above, these
emission limits must have adequate
monitoring, recordkeeping, and periodic
reporting requirements in order to be
legally and practicably enforceable. In
its Commitment Letter, North Carolina
has committed to address this concern
by submitting, no later than one year
from the effective date of a final
conditional approval action (should
EPA finalize the proposed partial
conditional approval), a SIP revision
requesting incorporation of Conditions 4
I.B., P, and X into the SIP.105
Given the concerns identified above
and North Carolina’s Commitment
Letter containing the aforementioned
commitments to address these identified
concerns related to PCS, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the
sections of the Haze Plan addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
(f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4).
c. Documentation of Technical Basis:
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii),
EPA finds that North Carolina
adequately documented cost,
engineering, emissions, modeling, and
monitoring information to determine the
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress. With regard to
105 As discussed in Section IV.C.3.b.ii above,
North Carolina’s SIP contains a recordkeeping
provision at 15 NCAC 02D .0605.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
67362
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
emissions information, as required by
the RHR, the State included the required
years of the most recent triennial
emissions inventory (2017) and the most
recent annual emissions data (2019) at
the time of the development of the 2022
Plan (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii)). DAQ also
provided statewide actual emissions
inventory data for 2011, 2014, 2016,
2017, 2018, and 2019 in its 2022 Plan.
Additionally, the State provided 2028
emissions data used in the source
selection process. With regard to cost
and engineering information, the State
provided the underlying cost
calculations associated with the cost
summaries in Section 7.8 of the plan for
BRPP and Domtar, and the proposed
FFAs in Appendix G provide
engineering analyses evaluating
potential new control measures.106 With
regard to monitoring data, the State
provided IMPROVE data for the
modeling base period plus baseline,
current (2014–2018), updated current
(2015–2019), and natural conditions for
all VISTAS Class I areas with more
detailed data provided for the North
Carolina Class I areas. With regard to
modeling information, the State
documented the modeling input and
outputs and assumptions in the Haze
Plan and the results of the modeling
related to RPGs and PSAT source
impacts at Class I areas.
d. Assessment of the Five Additional
Factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv): EPA
finds that North Carolina considered
each of the five additional factors in 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), discussed the
measures the State has in place to
address each factor (or discussed why
such measures are not needed), and,
where relevant, explained how each
factor informed DAQ’s and VISTAS’
technical analyses for the second
planning period.
With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), EPA finds that DAQ
adequately addressed the requirement to
assess emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs,
including measures to address RAVI,
through the State’s emissions inventory
work for the base year of 2011 as
projected out to 2028.
With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), EPA finds that North
Carolina adequately evaluated measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities by describing various State
regulations that address control of
erosion, siltation, and pollution from
construction activities and that require
subject facilities to control PM from
106 The State documented that there are no
additional technical feasible control technologies
for SO2 at PCS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
fugitive dust emission sources generated
within plant boundaries.
With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), EPA finds that North
Carolina adequately considered source
retirement and replacement schedules
by summarizing existing and planned
source retirements throughout the 2022
Plan, including in Section 7.2.2
(retirements accounted for in the 2028
inventory/RPGs) and Section 8.3.5
(retirements not accounted for in the
2028 inventory/RPGs). Additionally,
retirement schedules for various Duke
Energy power plant facilities are
included in Table 7–43 of the 2022 Plan.
With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), EPA finds that North
Carolina adequately addressed the
requirement to consider the State’s basic
smoke management practices for
prescribed fire used for agricultural and
wildland vegetation management
purposes and smoke management
programs for the following reasons. The
State describes its Guidelines for
Managing Smoke from Forestry Burning
Operations to mitigate PM2.5 emissions
and regional haze impacts associated
with prescribed burning and highlights
interagency coordination related to
educating North Carolina citizens on
open burning and related topics.107
With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), EPA finds that North
Carolina assessed the anticipated net
effect on visibility due to projected
changes in point, area, and mobile
source emissions over the second period
in development of the 2028 RPGs for the
North Carolina Class I areas. DAQ used
the 2011 base year emissions inventory
to project emissions from various source
sectors to 2028, the end of the second
planning period. DAQ, through VISTAS,
completed CAMx modeling to estimate
visibility impairment in 2028 based on
projected 2028 emissions from the 2011
base year inventory and using IMPROVE
monitoring data for 2009–2013.108 For
North Carolina, estimated visibility
improvements by 2028 in each Class I
area are based on: estimated emissions
107 DAQ notes that elemental carbon is the
primary visibility impairing pollutant related to
wildfires, prescribed wildland fires, and
agricultural burning. Elemental carbon is a
relatively minor contributor to visibility
impairment on the 20 percent most impaired days
from the base period (2000–2004) through 2018 at
the Class I areas in VISTAS and Class I areas
neighboring VISTAS based on IMPROVE
monitoring data as discussed in Section 2.4 of the
2022 Plan. See Figures 2–17 and 2–18 of the 2022
Plan.
108 In preparing the 2028 emissions for point
sources, North Carolina started with a 2016 base
year inventory which include emission reductions
associated with federal and state control programs
and consent decrees included in the LTS for the
first planning period.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reductions associated with existing
federal and state measures implemented
or expected to be implemented during
the second planning period; emissions
reductions associated with facility
closures that occurred after the 2016
point source emissions base year (i.e.,
January 1, 2017 through November 18,
2018); and estimates of emissions
changes associated with economic
growth and other factors.
e. Interstate Consultation: With
respect to interstate consultation
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii), EPA
finds that North Carolina adequately
consulted with those states with Class I
areas where North Carolina emissions
may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment
and to consult with those states whose
sources may reasonably be anticipated
to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment at North Carolina’s Class I
areas. No states requested that North
Carolina perform a FFA of any of the
State’s sources. With respect to the
MANE–VU Ask, North Carolina
adequately took action to resolve
disagreements with MANE–VU related
to North Carolina’s statewide impacts
and satisfactorily documented the
State’s disagreements by sending the
February 16, 2018, letter to MANE–VU
documenting the State’s points of
disagreement in addition to supporting
the January 27, 2018, letter from
VISTAS to MANE–VU.109 With respect
to consultation with other states with
visibility impacts to North Carolina’s
Class I areas, DAQ adequately
documented the responses from
consulted states in Appendix F and as
summarized in Section 10.1.1 and
identified whether the State agrees with
the conclusions.
f. Conclusions: For the reasons
discussed above, EPA finds that North
Carolina’s LTS satisfies 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) but for the concerns with
the legal and practicable enforceability
of certain Domtar and PCS permit
conditions identified for incorporation
into the SIP. Given this finding and
North Carolina’s commitment to submit
a SIP revision resolving these concerns,
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the sections of the Haze Plan
addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2), (f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4).
109 Appendix F–4 of the 2022 Plan contains the
January 27, 2018, and February 16, 2018, letters
along with a letter dated October 16, 2017, in which
MANE–VU requested consultation with North
Carolina because North Carolina exceeds the
MANE–VU visibility impact threshold for at least
one Class I area in the MANE–VU region.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
D. RPGs
1. RHR Requirement: Section
51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements
pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area.
Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in
which a Class I area is located to
establish RPGs—one each for the
clearest days and the most impaired
days—reflecting the visibility
conditions that will be achieved at the
end of the planning period as a result of
the emission limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures required
under paragraph (f)(2) to be in states’
LTSs, as well as the implementation of
other CAA requirements. The LTSs, as
reflected by the RPGs, must provide for
an improvement in visibility on the
most impaired days relative to the
baseline period and ensure no
degradation on the clearest days relative
to the baseline period. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances
in which a Class I area’s RPG for the
most impaired days represents a slower
rate of visibility improvement than the
uniform rate of progress calculated
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in
which a mandatory Class I area is
located establishes an RPG for the most
impaired days that provides for a slower
rate of visibility improvement than the
URP, the state must demonstrate that
there are no additional emission
reduction measures for anthropogenic
sources or groups of sources in the state
that would be reasonable to include in
its LTS. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B)
67363
requires that if a state contains sources
that are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another state, and the
RPG for the most impaired days in that
Class I area is above the URP, the
upwind state must provide the same
demonstration.
2. State Assessment: North Carolina
identified 2028 RPGs for each of its
Class I areas in deciviews for the 20
percent clearest days and the 20 percent
most impaired in Tables 8–1 and 8–2,
respectively, of the 2022 Plan, which are
all well below the 2028 URP value for
each Class I area by approximately 13 to
23 deciviews (see Table 1) based on
VISTAS’ modeling. Table 4 summarizes
the 2028 RPGs and 2028 URP for North
Carolina’s Class I areas.
TABLE 4—NORTH CAROLINA’S CLASS I AREA 2028 RPGS AND URP IN DECIVIEWS (dv)
Class I area
2028 RPG for 20%
clearest days
2028 RPG for 20%
most impaired days
8.96
8.96
8.21
4.54
10.77
15.03
15.03
14.25
13.31
15.27
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Great Smoky Mountains ......................................................................................
Joyce Kilmer ........................................................................................................
Linville Gorge .......................................................................................................
Shining Rock ........................................................................................................
Swanquarter .........................................................................................................
Figures 3–1 through 3–4 of the 2022
Plan show the URP for the 20 percent
most impaired days for Great Smoky
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer, Linville
Gorge, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter.
3. EPA Evaluation: As discussed
previously in this document, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the
sections of the Haze Plan addressing the
regional haze requirements contained in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) due to concerns
with the legal and practicable
enforceability of certain permit
conditions for Domtar and PCS
identified for incorporation into the SIP.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i) specifies that
RPGs must reflect ‘‘enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures required
under paragraph (f)(2) of this section.’’
Because the RPGs must reflect
enforceable limits, compliance
schedules, and other measures in the
LTS and because the enforceability
issues discussed in Sections IV.C.3.b.ii
and IV.C.3.b.iii render certain emission
limits in the LTS for Domtar and PCS
unenforceable, EPA finds that North
Carolina has satisfied the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)
related to RPGs but for these practicable
enforceability concerns and proposes to
conditionally approve the sections of
the Haze Plan addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
North Carolina established 2028 RPGs
expressed in deciviews that reflect the
visibility conditions that are projected
to be achieved by the end of the second
planning period as a result of
implementation of the LTS and other
CAA requirements; North Carolina’s
RPGs also provide for an improvement
in visibility for the 20 percent most
impaired days since the baseline period
(2000–2004) and demonstrate that there
is no degradation in visibility for the 20
percent clearest days since the baseline
period; and any additional
unanticipated emissions reductions
provide further assurances that the
State’s Class I areas will achieve their
2028 RPGs. However, because the EPA
is proposing to conditionally approve
North Carolina’s LTS under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) through this proposed
rulemaking, EPA is also proposing to
conditionally approve the RPGs under
40 CFR 51.308(f)(3). Therefore, if North
Carolina submits the required corrective
SIP revision by the specified deadline in
its commitment letter and EPA approves
the submission, the identified
practicable enforceability concerns will
be cured and the conditional approval
of the elements of the Haze Plan related
to the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3) will be converted to a full
approval.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2028 Uniform rate
of progress
(URP)
21.49
21.49
20.71
20.98
18.28
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other
Implementation Plan Requirements
1. RHR Requirement: Section
51.308(f)(6) specifies that each
comprehensive revision of a state’s
regional haze SIP must contain or
provide for certain elements, including
monitoring strategies, emissions
inventories, and any reporting,
recordkeeping, and other measures
needed to assess and report on
visibility. A main requirement of this
subsection is for states with Class I areas
to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting
on visibility impairment. Compliance
with this requirement may be met
through participation in the IMPROVE
network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to
provide for the establishment of any
additional monitoring sites or
equipment needed to assess whether
RPGs to address regional haze for all
mandatory Class I areas within the state
are being achieved. Section
51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide
for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used in
determining the contribution of
emissions from within the state to
regional haze visibility impairment at
mandatory Class I areas both within and
outside the state. Section
51.308(f)(6)(iii) applies only to states
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
67364
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
that do not have a mandatory Class I
areas. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires
the SIP to provide for the reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each
Class I area in the state. Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide
for a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment, including
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available and estimates
of future projected emissions. It also
requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. Section
51.308(f)(6)(v) also requires states to
include estimates of future projected
emissions and include a commitment to
update the inventory periodically.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), if EPA or the
FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional
monitoring is needed to assess RAVI,
the state must include in its SIP revision
for the second planning period an
appropriate strategy for evaluating such
impairment.
2. State Assessment: With respect to
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), North Carolina
states that the existing IMPROVE
monitors for the State’s Class I areas are
adequate. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(ii), data from these
IMPROVE monitors will be used for
future haze plans and progress reports.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply
to North Carolina because it has Class I
areas. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(iv), NPS manages and
oversees the IMPROVE monitoring
network and reviews, verifies, and
validates IMPROVE data before its
submission to EPA’s Air Quality System
(AQS). With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(v), DAQ provided a
statewide baseline emissions inventory
of visibility impairing pollutants for the
year 2011 in Table 4–2 of the 2022 Plan;
provided 2011, 2014, and 2016–2019 110
anthropogenic emissions data for SO2,
NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOC in Tables
13–9, 13–10, 13–11, 13–12, 13–13,
respectively; provided EPA and VISTAS
2028 future emissions projections for
SO2 and NOX in Table 4–3, and for
specific point sources, 2028 VISTAS
emission projections for SO2 and NOX
in Tables 7–20 through 7–24; and
committed to update the inventory
periodically. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi), North Carolina affirms
there are no elements, including
110 As discussed above, at the time of
development of the 2022 Plan, the 2017 NEI was
the most recent triennial emissions inventory and
2019 emissions data were the most recent annual
emissions data available at the time of the
development of the 2022 Plan.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
measures, necessary to address and
report on visibility for North Carolina’s
Class I areas or Class I areas outside the
State that are affected by sources in
North Carolina. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4), the State did not include a
strategy for evaluating RAVI for any
Class I areas because no Federal agency
requested additional monitoring to
assess RAVI. Section II of the TSD
provides a more detailed summary of
the State’s assessment of its monitoring
strategy for regional haze and other plan
requirements pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6).
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA finds that
North Carolina has satisfied the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4) and (f)(6) related to RAVI,
visibility monitoring, and emissions
inventories. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4), EPA proposes to find that
this requirement does not apply to
North Carolina at this time because
neither EPA nor the FLMs requested
additional monitoring to assess RAVI.
EPA finds that North Carolina
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), which is
generally met by the State’s continued
participation in the IMPROVE
monitoring network and the VISTAS
RPO, for the following reasons. With
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), North
Carolina stated that the existing
IMPROVE monitors relied upon for the
State’s five Class I areas are adequate,
and thus, additional monitoring sites or
equipment are not needed to assess
whether RPGs for all Class I areas
within the State are being achieved.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii),
North Carolina has procedures by which
monitoring data and other information
are used to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the State to
regional haze at Class I areas both
within and outside the State through
North Carolina’s continued
participation in VISTAS’ regional haze
work. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(iii), this provision is
applicable for states with no Class I
areas and does not apply to North
Carolina. Regarding the reporting of
visibility monitoring data to EPA at least
annually for each Class I area in the
State pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(iv), EPA finds that North
Carolina’s participation in the
IMPROVE Steering Committee and the
IMPROVE monitoring network
addresses this requirement. With
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), EPA
finds that North Carolina’s continued
participation in VISTAS’ efforts for
projecting future emissions and
continued compliance with the
requirements of the AERR to
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
periodically update emissions
inventories satisfies the requirement to
provide for an emissions inventory for
the most recent year for which data are
available. In addition, EPA finds that
North Carolina adequately documented
that no further elements are necessary at
this time for the State to assess and
report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi). Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the portions of the
North Carolina SIP submission related
to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6).
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports
Describing Progress Toward the RPGs
1. RHR Requirement: Section
51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic
comprehensive revisions of states’
regional haze plans address the progress
report requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of
these requirements is to evaluate
progress toward the applicable RPGs for
each Class I area within the state and
each Class I area outside the state that
may be affected by emissions from
within that state. Sections 51.308(g)(1)
and (2) apply to all states and require a
description of the status of
implementation of all measures
included in a state’s first planning
period regional haze plan and a
summary of the emission reductions
achieved through implementation of
those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3)
applies only to states with Class I areas
within their borders and requires such
states to assess current visibility
conditions, changes in visibility relative
to baseline (2000–2004) visibility
conditions, and changes in visibility
conditions relative to the period
addressed in the first planning period
progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4)
applies to all states and requires an
analysis tracking changes in emissions
of pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment from all sources and sectors
since the period addressed by the first
planning period progress report. This
provision further specifies the year or
years through which the analysis must
extend depending on the type of source
and the platform through which its
emission information is reported.
Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), which also
applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the state have occurred since the
period addressed by the first planning
period progress report, including
whether such changes were anticipated
and whether they have limited or
impeded expected progress toward
reducing emissions and improving
visibility.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2. State Assessment: With respect to
the progress report elements pursuant to
40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), DAQ addressed
these elements in Section 13 of the 2022
Plan for the period 2011 to 2018, the
end of the first period.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and
(g)(2), DAQ describes the status of the
implementation of the measures of the
LTS from the first planning period in
Section 13.2 of the 2022 Plan and
provides a summary of the emission
reductions achieved by implementing
those measures in Section 13.3 of the
2022 Plan. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1), Table 13–1 of the 2022
Plan identifies key emissions control
measures and other emission reduction
actions included in the LTS of North
Carolina’s first regional haze plan
submitted on December 17, 2007 (‘‘2007
Haze Plan’’). Table 13–1 also identifies
key measures that contributed to
emission reductions during the first
planning period but were not a part of
the LTS for the first period (e.g., 2010
SO2 NAAQS).
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2),
North Carolina continued to focus on
SO2 emissions reductions because the
State determined that ammonium
sulfate was the most important
contributor to visibility impairment and
fine particle mass on the 20 percent best
and 20 percent worst days in the first
planning period.111 In Section 13.3 of
the 2022 Plan, DAQ summarized EGU
and certain non-EGU SO2 emissions
reductions over the 2013–2018 period.
The Duke Energy Progress and Duke
Progress Carolinas EGU facilities
collectively emitted a total of 73,456
tons of SO2 emissions in 2011 which
decreased to 15,130 tons in 2018, a
reduction of approximately 79 percent
and the EGU sector represents over 50
percent of statewide SO2 emissions from
stationary sources in North Carolina.
Regarding EGU NOX emissions
reductions, Duke Energy Progress and
Duke Progress Carolinas EGU facilities
together emitted a total of 39,285 tons of
NOX emissions in 2011 which decreased
to 27,305 tons in 2018, a reduction of 30
percent. Additionally, DAQ focused on
five non-EGU facilities identified in the
2007 Haze Plan for a FFA and for which
no new measures were found reasonable
in that plan: BRPP; Domtar;
International Paper—New Bern Mill;
PCS; and Coastal Carolina Clean
Power—Kenansville. Except for Domtar,
whose SO2 emissions increased by 161
111 For the first planning period, visibility
conditions were determined for the average of the
20 percent most impaired visibility days (referred
to as the ‘‘worst’’ days) and the 20 percent least
impaired visibility days (referred to as the ‘‘best’’
days).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
tpy from 2011 to 2018, SO2 emissions
decreased due to new control measures
or because the facility closed (i.e.,
Coastal Carolina Clean Power—
Kenansville closed in 2017). DAQ states
that there has been a 58 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions associated
with these five facilities. The data
summarized below regarding 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4) also reflects emissions
reductions for the 2013–2018 period.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), DAQ
calculated the following for the State’s
five Class I areas in Tables 13–6, 13–7,
and 13–8: the current visibility
conditions (2014–2018); the difference
between current visibility conditions
compared to the baseline; and the
change in visibility impairment for the
most and least impaired days over the
past five years. DAQ concluded that
IMPROVE monitoring data for 2014–
2018 show that all North Carolina Class
I areas are well below the 2018 RPG for
the 20 percent worst days and there is
no degradation on the 20 percent best/
clearest days which is illustrated in
Figures 13–1 through 13–8 of the 2022
Plan.112
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in
Section 13.5, DAQ provided emissions
trends from 2011 through 2019 for SO2,
NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOCs which
reflect the emissions reductions from
the measures in the first planning
period LTS. In summary, from 2011 to
2019, statewide emissions of SO2, NOX,
PM2.5, PM10, and VOCs have reduced by
71, 40, 20, 4, and 13 percent,
respectively. Regarding SO2, statewide
SO2 emissions decreased (in tpy) from
118,721 in 2011 to 34,712 in 2019.
Regarding NOX, statewide NOX
emissions decreased (in tpy) from
369,496 in 2011 to 223,264 in 2019.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), in
Section 13.6, DAQ reviewed
anthropogenic SO2 and NOX emissions
trends based on emissions included in
the 2011, 2014, and 2017 NEIs for the
VISTAS states and all of the RPOs. The
data show a decline in SO2 and NOX
emissions from 2011 through 2017 in all
regions of the country as shown in Table
13–14 and Figures 13–14 and 13–15 of
the 2022 Plan. DAQ concluded that
there does not appear to be any
anthropogenic emissions within North
Carolina that would have limited or
impeded progress in reducing pollutant
emissions or improving visibility.
Section III of the TSD provides a more
detailed summary of the State’s
assessment of how North Carolina
addressed requirements for periodic
112 In Figures 13–1 through 13–8 of the 2022 Plan,
the ‘‘Model Projection’’ represents the RPGs and
‘‘Observation’’ represents IMPROVE data.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67365
reports describing progress toward the
RPGs for the State’s Class I areas
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA finds that
North Carolina has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)–(5)
because the 2022 Plan adequately
describes the status of the measures
included in the LTS from the first
planning period and the emission
reductions achieved from those
measures; the visibility conditions and
changes at the North Carolina Class I
areas; an analysis tracking the changes
in emissions since the first planning
period progress report using available
emissions data from 2011–2019,
including annual 2018 and 2019
emissions data and 2017 NEI data which
is the most recent triennial emissions
inventory submission from North
Carolina prior to submission of the 2022
Plan in accordance with the RHR; and
assessed whether any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions
within or outside the State have
occurred since 2010 (the end of the
period addressed by North Carolina’s
first planning period progress report),
including whether these changes in
anthropogenic emissions were
anticipated in that most recent plan and
whether they have limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant
emissions and improving visibility.
Thus, EPA is proposing to approve the
progress report elements pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(5).
G. Requirements for State and FLM
Coordination
1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(d)
of the CAA requires states to consult
with FLMs before holding the public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP
and to include a summary of the FLMs’
conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. In addition, the
FLM consultation provision of 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2) requires a state to provide
the FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation that is early enough in the
state’s policy analyses of its emission
reduction obligation so that information
and recommendations provided by the
FLMs can meaningfully inform the
state’s decisions on its LTS. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120
days before a public hearing or public
comment period, the opportunity for
consultation will be deemed early
enough. Regardless, the opportunity for
consultation must be provided at least
60 days before a public hearing or
public comment period at the state
level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides
two substantive topics on which the
FLMs must be provided an opportunity
to discuss with states: assessment of
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
67366
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
visibility impairment in any Class I area
and recommendations on the
development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility
impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3)
requires states, in developing their
implementation plans, to include a
description of how they addressed
FLMs’ comments. Section 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4) requires that the regional
haze SIP revision provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the state’s
visibility protection program.
2. State Assessment: As required by
CAA section 169A(d), North Carolina
consulted with the FLMs prior to
opening the State public comment
period on its proposed haze plan and
included a summary of the conclusions
and recommendations of the FLMs in
the proposed plan dated August 30,
2021, in Section 10.4 and Appendix H
of the 2022 Plan. North Carolina
consulted with the FLMs on April 5,
2021, which was 147 days before the
opening of the public comment period
on August 30, 2021.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2),
DAQ offered to the three FLM agencies
the opportunity to consult on the April
5, 2021, draft North Carolina Haze Plan.
DAQ shared with the FLMs the August
30, 2021, proposed North Carolina Haze
Plan issued for state public notice and
comment with a public hearing held
October 6, 2021, with the close of the
comment period on October 15, 2021. A
summary of this consultation process is
discussed and documented in Section
10.4 of the 2022 Plan (responses to FLM
comments) with supporting information
in Appendix H (FLM comments
received) and Appendix F. Appendix F–
3 contains VISTAS stakeholder
materials which include data and
analyses for North Carolina that were
presented to the FLMs (and EPA). In
addition, through VISTAS, North
Carolina participated in a series of
conference calls where the FLMs and
EPA were given the opportunity review
and provide feedback regarding
technical analyses developed by
VISTAS. DAQ also participated in calls
hosted by VISTAS with other RPOs,
FLMs, and EPA to discuss VISTAS’
approaches to source selection and
other related topics. See Appendix F of
the 2022 Plan.
To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), North
Carolina provided responses to
comments received from NPS and USFS
in Section 10.4 and Appendix I (Section
3.2) of the 2022 Plan.113
113 FWS
did not provide written comments to
DAQ on North Carolina’s draft and proposed haze
plans.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4),
North Carolina updated its existing
procedures for continuing consultation
with the FLMs, including annual
discussions with a review of the most
recent IMPROVE monitoring data. Also,
DAQ stated that its New Source Review
(NSR) regulations for both
nonattainment and attainment areas will
address emissions from new sources
that may be located near a Class I area
or increased emissions from major
modifications to existing sources. DAQ
noted that consultation with the FLMs
is also required for sources that are
subject to its NSR regulations.
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA is proposing
to conditionally approve the Haze Plan
with respect to the FLM consultation
requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2)–(4) because EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the
LTS under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and the
RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3).
Although North Carolina consulted with
the FLMs prior to the public hearing on
the 2022 Plan and included a summary
of the conclusions and
recommendations of the FLMs in the
proposed plan issued for public review,
provided the FLMs the requisite
opportunity to review and provide
feedback on the State’s initial draft plan
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2),
included the FLM comments in the
proposed Haze Plan pursuant to CAA
169(A)(d), included responses to the
FLM comments in the Haze Plan
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), and
included ongoing FLM consultation
procedures in the Haze Plan pursuant to
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), North Carolina’s
consultation was based on a SIP
revision that did not meet the required
statutory and regulatory requirements of
the CAA and the RHR, respectively. If
EPA finalizes the partial conditional
approval of the Plan, as proposed in this
document, the State will be required to
again satisfy the FLM consultation
requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(i) in
the process of submitting to EPA the
corrective SIP revision identified in its
Commitment Letter.
DAQ exercised this discretion, as is
described below in summary. In
reviewing DAQ’s analysis, EPA defers to
North Carolina’s reasonable exercise of
its discretion in considering EJ in this
way. The information associated with
DAQ’s analysis is included in this
document for informational purposes
only; it does not form any part of the
basis of EPA’s proposed action.
DAQ describes North Carolina’s EJ
Program for regional haze in Section
10.6 of the 2022 Plan which includes
outreach plans to provide an
opportunity for meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income during the
comment period of this regional haze
plan for North Carolina. DAQ ran
EJScreen,115 an EJ mapping and
screening tool that provided a nationally
consistent dataset and approach for
combining various environmental and
demographic indicators, around the
North Carolina Class I areas except for
Great Smoky Mountains because the
area is too large to perform the EJScreen
analysis. Based on the EJScreen results,
which are included in Appendix F–5 of
the Haze Plan, DAQ implemented its
outreach plan, including conducting
specific outreach during the comment
period on the August 30, 2021,
proposed haze plan to communities
within potentially underserved block
groups that overlap or are within one
mile of the North Carolina Class I areas.
DAQ also provided project information
and updates to the Eastern Band of the
Cherokee Nation. Section IV of the TSD
provides a more detailed summary of
how North Carolina opted to consider EJ
in development of the 2022 Plan. While
EPA commends North Carolina’s
consideration of EJ when developing its
SIP revision, the EJ analyses submitted
by DAQ were considered but were not
the basis for EPA’s proposed action.
As explained in EPA Legal Tools to
Advance Environmental Justice and the
2021 Clarifications Memo, CAA section
169A and the RHR provide states with
the discretion to consider EJ in
developing rules and measures related
to regional haze.114 In this instance,
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as
discussed above in this preamble, EPA
is proposing to incorporate by reference
into North Carolina’s SIP the following
conditions from DAQ Air Quality
Permit No. 04291T51 issued to Domtar
with an effective date of December 1,
2023: Conditions 2.1 A.4.a (except for
the references to HFB1 and the list of
systems and sources in A.4.a.i through
114 EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental
Justice (May 2022) is available at: https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/
EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May
%202022%20FINAL.pdf; 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 16.
115 EPA’s EJScreen tool is available at: https://
www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
H. Environmental Justice (EJ)
Considerations
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A.4.a.v); 116 A.6.e (except for the
references to HFB1 and the second
sentence); 117 A.6.k (except for the
references to HFB1); 118 A.6.l; A.6.m
(except the word ‘‘above’’); 119 A.7.a
(except for the text unrelated to the SO2
limit for HFB2); 120 A.7.d (except for the
references to particulate matter and the
word ‘‘above’’); 121 A.7.f (except for the
phrase ‘‘amounts of each fuel fired in
the No. 1 Hog Fuel Boiler each month
and the’’); 122 and A.7.g (except the
word ‘‘above’’).123 EPA is also proposing
116 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘Emissions of sulfur dioxide when firing wood or
natural gas in the No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler (ID No. ES–
65–25–0310) shall not exceed 2.3 pounds per
million Btu heat input. Sulfur dioxide formed by
the combustion of sulfur in fuels, wastes, ores, and
other substances shall be included when
determining compliance with this standard, and
shall include the sulfur dioxide formed by the
combustion of sulfur-containing gases.’’ See Section
7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
117 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limit for the No. 2 Hog
Fuel Boiler (ID No. ES–65–25–0310) by fuel
sampling and analysis. [40 CFR 60.45(b)(2)]’’ See
Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
118 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.7(b), the Permittee shall
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of
any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of the No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler (ID No. ES
65–25–0310) and any malfunctions of the air
pollution control equipment, or any periods during
which a continuous monitoring system or
monitoring device is inoperative [40 CFR 60.7(b)].
The Permittee shall be deemed in noncompliance
with 15A NCAC 02D .0524 if the startup, shutdown,
or malfunction records and records of air pollution
control equipment malfunctions are not maintained
as specified.’’ See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
119 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The Permittee shall record and maintain records
of the amount and type of each fuel burned during
each day and keep fuel receipts from the supplier
that certify potential sulfur dioxide content of fuel
oil fired in the hog fuel boilers as specified in
Section 2.1 A.6.e. The Permittee shall be deemed
in noncompliance with 15A NCAC 02D .0524 if the
fuel records are not maintained as specified.’’ See
Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
120 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The following Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) shall not be exceeded:’’ and include the row
entry for HFB2 containing the 0.80 lb/MMBtu
emission limit. See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
121 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The Permittee shall follow the monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements for sulfur dioxide in
Section 2.1 A.6.e and A.6.i through A.6.m. The
Permittee shall be deemed in noncompliance with
15A NCAC 02D .0530 if the monitoring required for
sulfur dioxide emissions from the No. 2 Hog Fuel
Boiler is not maintained as required.’’ See Section
7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
122 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The Permittee shall record and maintain records
of the amounts of each fuel fired in the No. 2 Hog
Fuel Boiler each month and make these records
available to an authorized representative of DAQ
upon request. The Permittee shall be deemed in
noncompliance with 15A NCAC 02D .0530 if the
amounts of fuels fired each month are not
recorded.’’ See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
123 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The Permittee shall submit a semiannual summary
report, acceptable to the Regional Air Quality
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
the incorporation by reference into
North Carolina’s SIP the following
conditions from DAQ Air Quality
Permit No. 04176T72 issued by DAQ to
PCS with an effective date of May 7,
2024: Conditions 2.4 A.1.b (except for
the phrase ‘‘By no later than the
compliance deadline specified in
Section 2.4 A.1.g, below,’’); 124 A.1.c
(except for the phrase ‘‘By no later than
the compliance deadline specified in
Section 2.4 A.1.g, below,’’); 125 A.1.d
(except for the phrase ‘‘By no later than
the compliance deadline specified in
Section 2.4 A.1.g, below,’’ and the last
four sentences of A.1.d.ii); 126 A.1.f;
A.1.h; A.1.i; A.1.k (except for the phrase
‘‘After the compliance dates listed in
Section 2.1.1 A.6.g, above,’’); 127 A.1.l
(except for the phrase ‘‘Beginning with
the initial RATA as required by Section
2.1.1 A.6.k, above, and thereafter’’); 128
Supervisor, of monitoring and recordkeeping
activities given in Section 2.1 A.7.d through A.7.f,
postmarked on or before January 30 of each
calendar year for the preceding six-month periods
between July and December, and July 30 of each
calendar year for the preceding six-month period
between January and June. The report shall identify
all periods of noncompliance from the requirements
of this permit or a statement that no periods of
noncompliance occurred during the reporting
period.’’ See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
124 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The sulfur dioxide emissions from Sulfuric Acid
Plant No. 5 (ID No. S–5) shall not exceed the
following emissions limitations: i. Short-Term
Limit: 3.2 pounds per ton of 100 percent sulfuric
acid production on a 3-hour rolling average basis.
ii. Long-Term Limit: 2.5 pounds per ton of 100
percent sulfuric acid production on a 365-day
rolling average basis.’’ See Section 7.8.3.2 of the
2022 Plan.
125 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The sulfur dioxide emissions from Sulfuric Acid
Plant No. 6 (ID No. S–6) shall not exceed the
following emissions limitations: i. Short-Term
Limit: 3.3 pounds per ton of 100 percent sulfuric
acid production on a 3-hour rolling average basis.
ii. Long-Term Limit: 2.5 pounds per ton of 100
percent sulfuric acid production on a 365-day
rolling average basis.’’ See Section 7.8.3.2 of the
2022 Plan.
126 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The sulfur dioxide emissions from Sulfuric Acid
Plant No. 7 (ID No. S–7) shall not exceed the
following emissions limitations: i. Short-Term
Limit: 3.0 pounds per ton of 100 percent sulfuric
acid production on a 3-hour rolling average basis.
ii. Long-Term Limit: 1.75 pounds per ton of 100
percent sulfuric acid production on a 365-day
rolling average basis.’’ See Section 7.8.3.2 of the
2022 Plan.
127 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The Permittee shall conduct a Relative Accuracy
Test Audit (RATA) at least once every four calendar
quarters at each of the Sulfuric Acid Plants No. 5,
No. 6, and No. 7 (ID Nos. S–5, S–6, and No. 7) per
the procedures of 40 CFR 60.85 for sulfur dioxide
and oxygen concentrations and pounds sulfur
dioxide per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid
produced as required by 40 CFR part 60 Appendix
F, Procedure 1, 5.1.1.’’ See Section 7.8.3.2 of the
2022 Plan.
128 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘For every triennial RATA (i.e., year 1, 4, 7, etc.),
the Permittee shall utilize the reference methods
and procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.85(b) to
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67367
A.1.m (except for the phrase ‘‘By no
later than the compliance deadlines
listed in Section 2.4 A.1.g, above,’’ the
phrase ‘‘(see Attachment 2 of this
permit),’’ and Condition A.1.m.v); 129
A.1.n; A.1.o (except for the phrase ‘‘per
Attachment 2 of this permit,’’ and the
second sentence); 130 A.1.p; and A.1.q.
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
VI. Proposed Action
For the reasons stated herein, EPA is
proposing to approve in part and
conditionally approve in part North
Carolina’s April 4, 2022, SIP submission
as supplemented with a commitment
letter on July 30, 2024. EPA is proposing
to approve the sections of the Haze Plan
addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1), (f)(4) through(6), and (g)(1)
generate the Reference Method values for
calculating the relative accuracy. In intervening
years (i.e., year 2, 3, 5, 6, etc.) the Permittee may
use the alternative method specified in 40 CFR
60.85(c) to calculate the Reference Method values.’’
See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
129 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The Permittee shall monitor sulfur dioxide
emissions from each of the sulfuric acid plants (ID
Nos. S–5, S–6, and S–7), in accordance with the
SO2 CEMS Plan and following procedures: i. The
Permittee shall measure the sulfur dioxide
concentration (lb/DSCF or ppmvd) and oxygen
concentration (percent by volume) at the exit stack
at least once every 15 minutes using a sulfur
dioxide analyzer and oxygen analyzer. ii. During
routine calibration checks and adjustments of any
analyzer, the precalibration level shall be used to
fill in any analyzer data gaps that occur pending
completion of the calibration checks and
adjustments. iii. If any one or more than one
analyzer is/are not operating, a like-kind
replacement (i.e. a redundant analyzer) may be used
as a substitute. iv. If any one or more than one
analyzer is/are not operating for a period of 24
hours or greater and no redundant analyzer is
available, data gaps in the array involving the nonoperational analyzer(s) shall be filled is as follows:
(A) Exit stack gas shall be sampled and analyzed for
sulfur dioxide at least once every three hours, while
the relevant sulfuric acid plant is operating.
Sampling shall be conducted by Reich test or other
established method (e.g., portable analyzer). The
most recent 3-hour average reading shall be
substituted for the four 15-minute average
measurements that would otherwise be utilized if
the analyzer were operating normally. (B) Oxygen
in the exit stack gas shall be sampled and analyzed
at least once every three hours, while the relevant
sulfuric acid plant is operating. Sampling shall be
conducted by Orsat test or other method (e.g.,
portable analyzer). The most recent 3-hour average
reading shall be substituted for the four 15- minute
average measurements that would otherwise be
utilized if the analyzer were operating normally.’’
See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
130 The text incorporated into the SIP would state
‘‘The 15-minute analyzer data shall be used to
determine the 3-hour rolling averages and 365-day
rolling averages to demonstration [sic] compliance
with the short-term and long-term sulfur dioxide
limits.’’ See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
67368
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
through(5). EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the sections of
the Haze Plan addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
(f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4) due to
concerns with the legal and practicable
enforceability of certain permit
conditions identified in the Haze Plan
for incorporation into the SIP.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA 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 merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, 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 14094 (88 FR
21879, April 11, 2023);
• 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 subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); and
• 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.
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 rule does not have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:20 Aug 19, 2024
Jkt 262001
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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies
to identify and address
‘‘disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects’’
of their actions on minority populations
and low-income populations to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law. EPA defines EJ as
‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income
with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.’’ EPA further defines the term
fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of
people should bear a disproportionate
burden of environmental harms and
risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and
policies.’’
North Carolina DAQ evaluated EJ
considerations as part of its SIP
submittal even though the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require an
evaluation. EPA’s evaluation of North
Carolina DAQ’s EJ considerations are
described above in the section titled,
‘‘Environmental Justice (EJ)
Considerations.’’ The analysis was done
for the purpose of providing additional
context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis
of the proposed action. EPA is
proposing action under the CAA on
bases independent of North Carolina’s
evaluation of EJ. Due to the nature of the
action being proposed here, this
proposed action is expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air
quality of the affected area. In addition,
there is no information in the record
upon which this decision is based that
is inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898 of achieving EJ
for people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: August 13, 2024.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2024–18495 Filed 8–19–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 721 and 725
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2024–0074; FRL–11916–
01–OCSPP]
RIN 2070–AB27
Significant New Use Rules on Certain
Chemical Substances (24–1.5e)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing significant
new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) for
chemical substances that were the
subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs) and a Microbial Commercial
Activity Notice (MCAN) and are also
subject to a TSCA Order. The SNURs
require persons who intend to
manufacture (defined by statute to
include import) or process any of these
chemical substances for an activity that
is proposed as a significant new use by
this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing that activity. The
required notification initiates EPA’s
evaluation of the conditions of use for
that chemical substance. In addition, the
manufacture or processing for the
significant new use may not commence
until EPA has conducted a review of the
required notification, made an
appropriate determination regarding
that notification, and taken such actions
as required by that determination.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2024–0074, at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting
the docket, along with more information
about dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact:
William Wysong, New Chemicals
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20AUP1.SGM
20AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67341-67368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18495]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0786; FRL-10405-01-R4]
Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Second Period Regional Haze
Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve in part and conditionally approve in part a regional haze State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (DAQ),
dated April 4, 2022 (``Haze Plan'' or ``2022 Plan'') under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the
regional haze program's second planning period. North Carolina's 2022
SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress toward
the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses
other applicable requirements for the second planning period of the
regional haze program. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections
110 and 169A of the Act.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 19,
2024.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0786, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or 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 discussion of all points you wish to make. 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
system). For additional submission methods, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Multi-Air
Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms.
Notarianni can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9031 or electronic
mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning
Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
[[Page 67342]]
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward
the RPGs
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM)
Coordination
IV. EPA's Evaluation of North Carolina's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Planning Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP
C. LTS for Regional Haze
D. RPGs
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward
the RPGs
G. Requirements for State and FLM Coordination
H. Environmental Justice (EJ) Considerations
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
On April 4, 2022, the North Carolina DAQ submitted a revision to
its SIP to address regional haze for the second planning period. DAQ
made this SIP submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's
regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR
51.308.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve in part and conditionally
approve in part North Carolina's Haze Plan. For the reasons discussed
in this document, EPA is proposing to approve the sections of the Haze
Plan addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), (f)(4)
through(6), and (g)(1) through(5). EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the sections of the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2), (f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4) due to concerns with
the legal and practicable enforceability of certain permit conditions
identified in the Haze Plan for incorporation into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a letter dated August 15, 2022, EPA found that North
Carolina's Haze Plan meets the completeness criteria outlined in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V. A completeness determination does not
constitute a finding on the merits of the submission or whether it
meets the relevant criteria for SIP approval. The August 15, 2022,
letter is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA may approve in part
portions of the SIP submittal if those portions meet the all the
applicable requirements. Under CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA may
conditionally approve a SIP revision based on a commitment from a state
to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later
than one year from the date of conditional approval of the plan
revision. If the state fails to meet the commitment within one year of
the final conditional approval, the conditional approval will be
treated as a disapproval. North Carolina submitted a letter, dated July
30, 2024, (``Commitment Letter''), requesting partial conditional
approval of its Haze Plan and committing to submit a SIP revision
containing specific enforceable measures no later than one year from
the effective date of a final conditional approval action, should EPA
finalize this partial conditional approval as proposed.\2\ EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the sections of the Haze Plan
addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), (f)(3), and (i)(2)
through(4). These elements are fully separable from the elements
proposed for partial approval. If North Carolina meets its commitment
to submit the required SIP revision that adequately addresses the
identified concerns related to the enforceability of certain permit
conditions by the specified deadline and EPA approves the submission,
then the conditional approval will be converted to a full approval. See
Section IV.C.3.b of this document for a discussion of the
enforceability concerns resulting in the proposed partial conditional
approval and the commitments in North Carolina's Commitment Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commitment Letter is in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\3\ CAA 169A.
The CAA establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future,
and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in
mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade
air pollution.'' CAA 169A(a)(1). The CAA further directs EPA to
promulgate regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting
this national goal. CAA 169A(a)(4). On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in mandatory
Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to as ``Class I areas'')
that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small group
of sources. See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations,
codified at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase
of EPA's efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990, Congress
added section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility impairment,
specifically, impairment from regional haze. CAA 169B. EPA promulgated
the RHR, codified at 40 CFR 51.308,\4\ on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714
(July 1, 1999). These regional haze regulations are a central component
of EPA's comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas statutorily designated as 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. CAA
162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of areas to
which the requirements of the visibility protection program apply is
in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\4\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus, are
not relevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH3)). Precursor pollutants react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers ([micro]m) in diameter, PM2.5), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric defined and used by the RHR. Under many
circumstances, a change in one deciview will be perceived by the
human eye to be the same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview
is unitless. It is proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric
extinction of light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to
its being scattered and absorbed as it passes through the
atmosphere. Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used
for expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm-1). EPA's ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'') offers the flexibility for the use of light extinction
in certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use in
calculations than deciviews since it is not a logarithmic function.
See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 19, https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019). The formula for
the deciview is 10 ln (b\ext\)/10 Mm-1). See 40 CFR
51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67343]]
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both states in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment. CAA 169A(b)(2); \6\ see also 40 CFR
51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates for iterative regional
haze SIP revisions); 64 FR at 35768. Under the CAA, each SIP submission
must contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal,'' CAA
169A(b)(2)(B); the initial round of SIP submissions also had to address
the statutory requirement that certain older, larger sources of
visibility impairing pollutants install and operate the best available
retrofit technology (BART). CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e).
States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December 17, 2007, 40 CFR
51.308(b), with subsequent SIP submissions containing updated long-term
strategies (LTSs) originally due July 31, 2018, and every ten years
thereafter. 64 FR at 35768. EPA established in the 1999 RHR that all
states either have Class I areas within their borders or ``contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
regional haze in a Class I area''; therefore, all states must submit
regional haze SIPs.\7\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The RHR expresses the statutory requirement for states to
submit plans addressing out-of-state Class I areas by providing that
states must address visibility impairment ``in each mandatory Class
I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\7\ In addition to each of the 50 states, EPA also concluded
that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia must also submit
regional haze SIPs because they either contain a Class I area or
contain sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b),
(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the focus in the first planning period of the regional haze
program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on satisfying states'
BART obligations. First planning period SIPs were additionally required
to contain LTSs for making reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal, of which BART is one component. The core required
elements for the first planning period SIPs (other than BART) are laid
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d). Those provisions require that states
containing Class I areas establish ``reasonable progress goals''
(``RPGs'') that are measured in deciviews and reflect the anticipated
visibility conditions at the end of the planning period including from
implementation of states' LTSs. The first planning period RPGs were
required to provide for an improvement in visibility for the most
impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same
period. In establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a state, the
state was required to consider four statutory factors (also referenced
herein as ``the four factors''): the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. See CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help states
assess the amount of progress they are making toward the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\8\ 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), and (d)(2). The 1999 RHR also provided that states'
LTSs must include the ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance,
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In establishing their LTSs,
states are required to consult with other states that also contribute
to visibility impairment in a given Class I area and include all
measures necessary to obtain their shares of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii). Section
51.308(d) also contains seven additional factors states must consider
in formulating their LTSs, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as
provisions governing monitoring and other implementation plan
requirements. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Finally, the 1999 RHR required
states to submit periodic progress reports--SIP revisions due every
five years that contain information on states' implementation of their
regional haze plans and an assessment of whether anything additional is
needed to make reasonable progress, see 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h), and
to consult with the Federal Land Manager(s) \9\ (FLMs) responsible for
each Class I area according to the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40
CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA established the URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide
``an equitable analytical approach'' to assess the rate of
visibility improvement at Class I areas across the country. The
start point for the URP analysis is 2004 and the endpoint was
calculated based on the amount of visibility improvement that was
anticipated to result from implementation of existing CAA programs
over the period from the mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming
this rate of progress would continue into the future, EPA determined
that natural visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or
2064 (60 years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However,
EPA did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal
must be reached. See 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the
2064 date are not enforceable targets, but are rather tools that
``allow for analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that
would be achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and
the URP.'' See 82 FR 3078, 3084 (January 10, 2017).
\9\ EPA's regulations define ``Federal Land Manager'' as ``the
Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal Class I
area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the Roosevelt-
Campobello International Park Commission.'' See 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR (82 FR
3078) that apply for the second and subsequent planning periods. The
2017 rulemaking made several changes to the requirements for regional
haze SIPs to clarify states' obligations and streamline certain
regional haze requirements. The revisions to the regional haze program
for the second and subsequent planning periods focused on the
requirement that states' SIPs contain LTSs for making reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. The reasonable progress
requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking (referred to here as the
2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR 51.308(f). Among other
changes, the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the deadline for states to
submit their second planning period SIPs from July 31, 2018, to July
31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis and the relationship between
RPGs and the LTSs, and focused on making visibility improvements on the
days with the most anthropogenic visibility impairment, as opposed to
the days with the most visibility impairment overall. EPA also revised
requirements of the visibility protection program related to periodic
progress reports and FLM consultation. The specific requirements
applicable to second planning period regional haze SIP submissions are
addressed in detail below.
EPA provided guidance to the states for their second planning
period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017
[[Page 67344]]
RHR Revisions as well as in subsequent stand-alone guidance documents.
In August 2019, EPA issued its 2019 Guidance.\10\ On July 8, 2021, EPA
issued a memorandum containing ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period''
(``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\11\ Additionally, EPA had clarified the
recommended procedures for processing ambient visibility data and
optionally adjusting the URP to account for international anthropogenic
and prescribed fire impacts in two technical guidance documents: the
December 2018 ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018
Visibility Tracking Guidance''),\12\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation
for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data and Clarification of Data
Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for the Second
Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' and associated
Technical Addendum (``2020 Data Completeness Memo'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See footnote 5.
\11\ ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period.'' https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
\12\ ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.'' EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(December 20, 2018). https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional.
\13\ ``Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted
Data and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program.'' https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park (June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, EPA
intends the second planning period of the regional haze program to
secure meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that
build on the significant progress states have achieved to date. The
Agency also recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are
state-specific and that, based on states' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from state to state. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements. See,
generally, 2021 Clarifications Memo. This is consistent with Congress's
determination that a visibility protection program is needed in
addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs, as further
emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect visibility
in Class I areas throughout the country.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 at 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants affecting visibility in Class I areas
can be transported over long distances, successful implementation of
the regional haze program requires long-term, regional coordination
among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that have responsibility for
Class I areas and the emissions that impact visibility in those areas.
In order to address regional haze, states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another, considering the effect of emissions from
one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs),\15\ which include representation from state and
Tribal governments, EPA, and FLMs, were developed in the lead-up to the
first planning period to address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical
information to better understand how emissions from state and Tribal
land impact Class I areas across the country, pursue the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions of PM and other pollutants
leading to regional haze, and help states meet the consultation
requirements of the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
notice, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM), one
of the five RPOs described above, is a collaborative effort of state
and local agencies and Tribal governments established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeast. SESARM's
coalition to conduct regional haze work is referred to as Visibility
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS).\16\
The member states, local air agencies, and Tribal governments of VISTAS
are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia; the local air
agencies, represented by the President of Metro 4 or designee; \17\ and
the Tribes located within the VISTAS region, represented by the Eastern
Band of the Cherokee Indians. The Federal partner members of VISTAS are
EPA, U.S. National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The VISTAS technical work under SESARM is described at this
website: https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/vistas-regional-haze-program.
\17\ Metro 4 is a Tennessee corporation which represents the
local air pollution control agencies in EPA's Region 4 in the
Southeast. See https://www.metro4-sesarm.org/content/metro-4-about-us.
\18\ The NPS, FWS, and USFS are collectively referred to as the
``Federal Land Managers'' or ``FLMs'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Planning
Period
Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to submit regional
haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for the second
planning period of the regional haze program by July 31, 2021. Each
state's SIP must contain a LTS for making reasonable progress toward
meeting the national goal of remedying any existing and preventing any
future anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I areas. CAA
169A(b)(2)(B). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f) lays out the process by
which states determine what constitutes their LTSs, with the order of
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) through (f)(3) generally
mirroring the order of the steps in the reasonable progress analysis
\19\ and (f)(4) through (f)(6) containing additional related
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that the Agency was
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' 82 FR 3091 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadly speaking, a state first must identify the Class I areas
within the state and determine the Class I areas outside the state in
which visibility may be affected by emissions from the state. These are
the Class I areas that must be addressed in the state's LTS. See 40 CFR
51.308(f), (f)(2). For each Class I area within its borders, a state
must then
[[Page 67345]]
calculate the baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions for
that area, as well as the visibility improvement made to date and the
URP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1). Each state having a Class I area and/or
emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must then
develop a LTS that includes the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress in such areas. A reasonable progress determination
is based on applying the four factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to
sources of visibility impairing pollutants that the state has selected
to assess for controls for the second planning period.
Additionally, as further explained below, the RHR at 40 CFR
51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five ``additional factors'' \20\
that states must consider in developing their long-term strategies. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). A state evaluates potential emission reduction
measures for those selected sources and determines which are necessary
to make reasonable progress. Those measures are then incorporated into
the state's LTS. After a state has developed its LTS, it then
establishes RPGs for each Class I area within its borders by modeling
the visibility impacts of all reasonable progress controls at the end
of the second planning period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of
other requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress
controls not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is
located, but also for sources in other states that contribute to
visibility impairment in that area. The RPGs are then compared to the
baseline visibility conditions and the URP to ensure that progress is
being made toward the statutory goal of preventing any future and
remedying any existing anthropogenic visibility impairment in Class I
areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the
second planning period must address the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress toward the RPGs, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), as well as requirements
for FLM consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and
SIP revisions. See 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to EPA according to the requirements applicable to all SIP
revisions under the CAA and EPA's regulations. See CAA 169A(b)(2); CAA
110(a). Upon EPA approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and the
public under the CAA. If EPA finds that a state fails to make a
required SIP revision, or if EPA finds that a state's SIP is incomplete
or disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable requirements.
See CAA 110(c)(1).
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility impairment
in at least one Class I area, 64 FR at 35720-22, and explained that the
statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be required to
engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to
determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their
State.'' Id. at 35721.
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, EPA's
2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment might
be accomplished, including, where appropriate, using the determinations
previously made for the first planning period. 2019 Guidance at 8-9. In
addition, the determination of which Class I areas may be affected by a
state's emissions is subject to the requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical basis, including
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on
which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class
I Federal area it affects.''
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
planning period is providing for reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance \21\
provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
See 82 FR at 3103-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule'' which can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/tracking.pdf. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (September 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions).\22\ The RHR provides that the relevant
sets of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20 percent
clearest days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with
the lowest values of the deciview index) and 20 percent most impaired
days (the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the
highest amounts of anthropogenic visibility impairment).\23\ See 40 CFR
51.301. A state must calculate visibility conditions for both the 20
percent clearest days and 20 percent most impaired days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most recent five-year period for
which visibility monitoring data are available (representing current
visibility conditions). See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii). States must
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest days and
most impaired days \24\ by estimating the conditions that
[[Page 67346]]
would exist on those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility
impairment. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii). Using all these data, states
must then calculate, for each Class I area, the amount of progress made
since the baseline period (2000-2004) and how much improvement is left
to achieve in order to reach natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The ``deciview index'' means a value for a day that is
derived from calculated or measured light extinction, such that
uniform increments of the index correspond to uniform incremental
changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from
pristine to very obscured. The deciview index is calculated using
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
aerosol measurements. See 40 CFR 51.301.
\23\ This notice also refers to the 20 percent clearest and 20
percent most anthropogenically impaired days as the ``clearest'' and
``most impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically impaired'' days,
respectively.
\24\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
`or' has been corrected to `and' to indicate that natural visibility
conditions for both the most impaired days and the clearest days
must be based on available monitoring information.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each planning period in order to
achieve natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is
used in later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for
informational purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark
against which to assess a Class I area's rate of visibility
improvement.\25\ Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, EPA provided
states the option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the URP to
account for impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United States
and/or impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires. These
adjustments, which must be approved by EPA, are intended to avoid any
perception that states should compensate for impacts from international
anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility to determine
that limiting the use of wildland prescribed fire is not necessary for
reasonable progress. See 82 FR 3107, footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i) and provides
updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a LTS that
addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a state's borders
and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions from the state.
The LTS ``must include the enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through
(iv).'' See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). The amount of progress that is
``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory factors
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options
for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as
a ``four-factor'' analysis (FFA). The outcome of that analysis is the
emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement in order to make reasonable progress toward
the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress may
be either new, additional control measures for a source or the existing
emission reduction measures that a source is already implementing. See
2019 Guidance at 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo at 8-10. Such measures
must be represented by ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures'' in a state's LTS in its SIP. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the FFA. The
first step of this analysis entails selecting the sources to be
evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end, the RHR
requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary sources or
groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of visibility
impairing pollutants for potential control analysis (i.e., FFA). See 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). A threshold question at this step is which
visibility impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As EPA previously
explained, consistent with the first planning period, EPA generally
expects that each state will analyze at least SO2 and
NOX in selecting sources and determining control measures.
See 2019 Guidance at 12 and 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. A state that
chooses not to consider at least these two pollutants should
demonstrate why such consideration would be unreasonable. 2021
Clarifications Memo at 4.
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, which
sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a state may
not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a given SIP
revision.'' 2019 Guidance at 9. However, given that source selection is
the basis of all subsequent control determinations, a reasonable source
selection process ``should be designed and conducted to ensure that
source selection results in a set of pollutants and sources the
evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully reduce their
contributions to visibility impairment.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo
at 3.
EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state has
an obligation to submit a LTS that addresses the regional haze
visibility impairment that results from emissions from within that
state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state contribution
to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a meaningful
portion of the state's total contribution to visibility impairment in
Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its largest in-
state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-of-state
contributors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Similarly, in responding to comments on the 2017 RHR
Revisions, EPA explained that ``[a] state should not fail to address
its many relatively low-impact sources merely because it only has
such sources and another state has even more low-impact sources and/
or some high impact sources.'' Responses to Comments on Protection
of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 87-88,
available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
[[Page 67347]]
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second planning
period.\27\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' See CAA 169A(g)(1). EPA has explained that the FFA is
an assessment of potential emission reduction measures (i.e., control
options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance' and `subject to
such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly indicates that
Congress intended the relevant determination to be the requirements
with which sources would have to comply in order to satisfy the CAA's
reasonable progress mandate.'' See 82 FR at 3091. Thus, for each source
a state has selected for a FFA,\28\ it must consider a ``meaningful
set'' of technically feasible control options for reducing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants. Id. at 3088. The 2019 Guidance
provides that ``[a] state must reasonably pick and justify the measures
that it will consider, recognizing that there is no statutory or
regulatory requirement to consider all technically feasible measures or
any particular measures. A range of technically feasible measures
available to reduce emissions would be one way to justify a reasonable
set.'' See 2019 Guidance at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The CAA provides that ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. See CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emission reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\28\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or
subgroup. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on what
constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration: ``A
reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 7. In addition to add-on controls and other
retrofits (i.e., new emission reduction measures for sources), EPA
explained that states should generally analyze efficiency improvements
for sources' existing measures as control options in their FFAs, as in
many cases such improvements are reasonable given that they typically
involve only additional operation and maintenance costs. Additionally,
the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that have assumed a
higher emission rate than a source has achieved or could potentially
achieve using its existing measures should also consider lower emission
rates as potential control options. That is, a state should consider a
source's recent actual and projected emission rates to determine if it
could reasonably attain lower emission rates with its existing
measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower emission rate as a
control option for reducing emissions. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at
7. EPA's recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements
and achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have
been selected for FFA and those that have forgone a FFA on the basis of
existing ``effective controls.'' See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 5, 10.
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\29\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable progress.
See 2019 Guidance at 30-36. The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains
further guidance on how states can reasonably consider modeled
visibility impacts or benefits in the context of a FFA. See 2021
Clarifications Memo at 12-13, 14-15. Specifically, EPA explained that
while visibility can reasonably be used when comparing and choosing
between multiple reasonable control options, it should not be used to
summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four statutory
factors. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13. Ultimately, while states
have discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what
level of control is needed, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a
state ``must include in its implementation plan a description of how
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measure
for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186,
available at www.regulations.gov; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's LTS and in its SIP.\30\ If the outcome of a FFA
is a new, additional emission reduction measure for a source, that new
measure is necessary to make reasonable progress toward remedying
existing anthropogenic visibility impairment and must be included in
the SIP. If the outcome of a FFA is that no new measures are reasonable
for a source, continued implementation of the source's existing
measures is generally necessary to prevent future emission increases
and thus to make reasonable progress toward the second part of the
national visibility goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility
impairment. See CAA 169A(a)(1). That is, when the result of a FFA is
that no new measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the
source's existing measures are generally necessary to make reasonable
progress and must be included in the SIP. However, there may be
circumstances in which a state can demonstrate that a source's existing
measures are not
[[Page 67348]]
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing
measures and will not increase its emission rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the LTS in order to prevent future
emission increases and future visibility impairment. EPA's 2021
Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and guidance on how
states may demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at
8-10. If the state can make such a demonstration, it need not include a
source's existing measures in the LTS or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-09 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management programs under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such practices or
programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and EPA can comprehend and evaluate
the information and analysis the state relied upon to determine what
emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable
progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling,
monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the
state relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. This documentation requirement can be met through the
provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\31\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S.
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's LTS for making reasonable progress. Additionally,
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
``additional factors'' \32\ that states must consider in developing
their LTSs: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable
visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce the impacts of
construction activities; (3) source retirement and replacement
schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire
used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and
smoke management programs; and (5) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. The 2019 Guidance
provides that a state may satisfy this requirement by considering these
additional factors in the process of selecting sources for a FFA, when
performing that analysis, or both, and that not every one of the
additional factors needs to be considered at the same stage of the
process. See 2019 Guidance at 21. EPA provided further guidance on the
five additional factors in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, explaining
that a state should generally not reject cost-effective and otherwise
reasonable controls merely because there have been emission reductions
since the first planning period owing to other ongoing air pollution
control programs or merely because visibility is otherwise projected to
improve at Class I areas. Additionally, states generally should not
rely on these additional factors to summarily assert that the state has
already made sufficient progress and, therefore, no sources need to be
selected or no new controls are needed regardless of the outcome of
FFAs. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
Additionally, the RHR requires that states that contribute to
visibility impairment at the same Class I area consider the emission
reduction measures the other contributing states have identified as
being necessary to make reasonable progress for their own sources. See
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B). If a state has been asked to consider or
adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines
those measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that
state must document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the
disagreement. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C). EPA will consider the
technical information and explanations presented by the submitting
state and the state with which it disagrees when considering whether to
approve the state's SIP. See Id.; 2019 Guidance at 53. Under all
circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission all
substantive consultations with other contributing states. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
D. Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
RPGs ``measure the progress that is projected to be achieved by the
control measures states have determined are necessary to make
reasonable progress based on a four-factor analysis.'' See 82 FR at
3091. Their primary purpose is to assist the public and EPA in
assessing the reasonableness of states' LTSs for making reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii) and (iv). States in which Class I areas are located
must establish two RPGs--one representing visibility conditions on the
clearest days and one representing visibility on the most
anthropogenically impaired days--for each area within their borders. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i). The two RPGs, measured in deciviews, are intended
to reflect the projected impacts, on each set of days,
[[Page 67349]]
of the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I area and
other contributing states have included in their LTSs for the second
planning period.\33\ The RPGs also account for the projected impacts of
implementing other CAA requirements, including non-SIP based
requirements. Because RPGs are the modeled result of the measures in
states' LTSs (as well as other measures required under the CAA), they
cannot be determined before states have conducted their FFAs and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress.\34\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses, control
determinations by other states, and other on-going emissions
changes, a particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control
measures and emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the
end of the implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when
states are developing their long-term strategies on disparate
schedules, as well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling
approach. See 2019 Guidance at 47-48.
\34\ The 2019 Guidance allows for the possibility of post-
modeling adjustments to the RPGs to account for the fact that final
LTS decisions for the state or for other states may not be known
until late in the process, or even after SIPs are submitted. See
2019 Guidance at 46-48. See also, 82 FR 3078, 3080 (January 10,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second planning period, the RPGs are set for 2028. RPGs are
not enforceable targets, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii); rather, they
``provide a way for the states to check the projected outcome of the
[long-term strategy] against the goals for visibility improvement.''
See 2019 Guidance at 46. While states are not legally obligated to
achieve the visibility conditions described in their RPGs, 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term strategy and the
reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility
for the most impaired days since the baseline period and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline
period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission reduction measures
in their LTSs that are projected to achieve visibility conditions on
the most impaired days that are better than the baseline period and
shows no degradation on the clearest days compared to the clearest days
from the baseline period. The baseline period for the purpose of this
comparison is the baseline visibility condition--the annual average
visibility condition for the period 2000-2004. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR at 3097-98.
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making toward the national visibility goal, the RHR
requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the most
impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line (representing
visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to improve at a linear
rate from conditions in the baseline period of 2000-2004 to natural
visibility conditions in 2064). If the most impaired days RPG in 2028
is above the URP (i.e., if visibility conditions are improving more
slowly than the rate described by the URP), each state that contributes
to visibility impairment in the Class I area must demonstrate, based on
the FFA required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional
emission reduction measures would be reasonable to include in its LTS.
40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii). To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires
that each state contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area
that is projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide ``a
robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to
determine which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how
the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into
consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term
strategy.'' The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such a
``robust demonstration'' might be conducted. See 2019 Guidance at 50-
51.
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the FFA is conducted)
is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and RHR's requirement that all
states must conduct a FFA to determine what emission reduction measures
constitute reasonable progress.\35\ The URP is a planning metric used
to gauge the amount of progress made thus far and the amount left
before reaching natural visibility conditions. However, the URP is not
based on consideration of the four statutory factors and therefore
cannot answer the question of whether the amount of progress being made
in any particular planning period is ``reasonable progress.'' See 82 FR
at 3093, 3099-3100; 2019 Guidance at 22; 2021 Clarifications Memo at
15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ In lieu of conducting a FFA, states may elect to show the
source has existing effective controls for the particular pollutants
under evaluation or that the source is shutting down by the end of
the planning period (or close to it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the IMPROVE monitoring network, which is used to
measure visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class
I areas covered by the visibility program. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6),
(f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv). The IMPROVE monitoring data is used to determine
the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired and 20 percent clearest
sets of days every year at each Class I area and tracks visibility
impairment over time.
All states' implementation plans must provide for procedures by
which monitoring data and other information are used to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment in affected Class I areas. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii). Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires that
all states' implementation plans provide for a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area; the inventory
must include emissions for the most recent year for which data are
available and estimates of future projected emissions. States must also
include commitments to update their inventories periodically. The
inventories themselves do not need to be included as elements in the
SIP and are not subject to EPA review as part of the Agency's
evaluation of a SIP revision.\36\ All states' implementation plans must
also provide for any other
[[Page 67350]]
elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, that
are necessary for states to assess and report on visibility. See 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi). Per the 2019 Guidance, a state may note in its
regional haze SIP that its compliance with the Air Emissions Reporting
Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A satisfies the requirement to
provide for an emissions inventory for the most recent year for which
data are available. To satisfy the requirement to provide estimates of
future projected emissions, a state may explain in its SIP how
projected emissions were developed for use in establishing RPGs for its
own and nearby Class I areas.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Guidance at 55.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \38\ Under this
provision, if EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has advised a
state that additional monitoring is needed to assess reasonably
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI), the state must include in
its SIP revision for the second planning period an appropriate strategy
for evaluating such impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ EPA's visibility protection regulations define ``reasonably
attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility impairment that
is caused by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small
number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the
RPGs
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first planning period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and EPA about a state's
implementation of its existing LTS and whether such implementation is
in fact resulting in the expected visibility improvement. See 81 FR
26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016), 82 FR 3119 (January 10, 2017). To this end,
every state's implementation plan revision for the second planning
period is required to describe the status of implementation of all
measures included in the state's LTS, including BART and reasonable
progress emission reduction measures from the first planning period,
and the resulting emissions reductions. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and
(2).
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second planning period progress reports, 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their borders to
first determine current visibility conditions for each area on the most
impaired and clearest days, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i), and then to
calculate the difference between those current conditions and baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions in order to assess progress made to
date. See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii). States must also assess the changes
in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest days since
they submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR
51.308 (f)(5) and (g)(3)(iii). Since different states submitted their
first planning period progress reports at different times, the starting
point for this assessment will vary state by state.
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first planning period progress reports. See 40 CFR
51.308 (f)(5) and (g)(4). Changes in emissions should be identified by
the type of source or activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses
changes in emissions since the period addressed by the previous
progress report and requires states' implementation plan revisions to
include an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state. This assessment must include an
explanation of whether these changes in emissions were anticipated and
whether they have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and
improving visibility relative to what the state projected based on its
LTS for the first planning period.
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager (FLM) Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a public
hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must consult with
the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that consultation, the state
must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in
the notice to the public. Consistent with this statutory requirement,
the RHR also requires that states ``provide the [FLM] with an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point early enough in
the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission
reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided
by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-
term strategy.'' See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). Consultation that occurs 120
days prior to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will be
deemed ``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In order for EPA to evaluate whether
FLM consultation meeting the requirements of the RHR has occurred, the
SIP submission should include documentation of the timing and content
of such consultation. The SIP revision submitted to EPA must also
describe how the state addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3). Finally, a SIP revision must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
IV. EPA's Evaluation of North Carolina's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Planning Period
On April 4, 2022, DAQ submitted a revision to the North Carolina
SIP to address the State's regional haze obligations for the second
planning period, which runs through 2028, in accordance with CAA
sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f).\39\ The following
sections contain EPA's evaluation of North Carolina's Haze Plan with
respect to the requirements of the CAA and RHR for the second
[[Page 67351]]
planning period of the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ On June 27, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of North
Carolina's first planning period regional haze plan submitted to EPA
on December 17, 2007 (77 FR 38185). On June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642),
EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the December 17, 2007,
submission. On May 24, 2016, EPA approved North Carolina's October
31, 2014, BART alternative demonstration, which was a revision to
its regional haze plan and converted the limited approval of the
December 17, 2007, submission to a full approval (81 FR 32652). On
August 25, 2016, EPA approved North Carolina's May 31, 2013,
progress report for the first planning period (81 FR 58400).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina has five Class I areas, two of which are shared with
Tennessee: Linville Gorge National Wilderness Area (``Linville
Gorge''); Shining Rock National Wilderness Area (``Shining Rock'');
Swanquarter National Wilderness Area (``Swanquarter''); Great Smoky
Mountains National Park (``Great Smoky Mountains'') (NC/TN); and Joyce
Kilmer-Slickrock National Wilderness Area (``Joyce Kilmer'') (NC/TN).
The following sections describe North Carolina's Haze Plan, including
analyses conducted by VISTAS and North Carolina's determinations based
on those analyses, North Carolina's assessment of progress made since
the first planning period in reducing emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants, and the visibility improvement progress at its Class I
areas and nearby Class I areas. This document also contains EPA's
evaluation of North Carolina's Haze Plan against the requirements of
the CAA and RHR for the second planning period of the regional haze
program.
A. Identification of Class I Areas
1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each
state in which any Class I area is located or ``the emissions from
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR
implements this statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which
provides that each state's plan ``must address regional haze in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from within the State,'' and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
which requires each state's plan to include a LTS that addresses
regional haze in such Class I areas. To develop a state's LTS, a state
must first determine which Class I areas may be affected by its own
emissions. For out-of-state Class I areas, states must assess their
visibility impacts on a statewide basis which is discussed in Section
IVA.2, below, and on a source specific basis which is discussed in
Section IV.C.2, below.
2. State Assessment: To address 40 CFR 51.308(f), North Carolina
identified Class I areas affected by North Carolina's statewide
emissions of visibility impairing pollutants and then consulted with
states with Class I areas affected by North Carolina's statewide
emissions. DAQ presented the results of Particulate Matter Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) \40\ modeling which VISTAS conducted to
estimate the projected impact of statewide SO2 and
NOX emissions across all emissions sectors in 2028 on total
light extinction for the 20 percent most impaired days in all Class I
areas in the VISTAS modeling domain.\41\ In Table 7-14 of the 2022
Plan, DAQ lists the total sulfate plus nitrate contribution from all
source sectors in North Carolina to total visibility impairment for the
20 percent most impaired days at Class I areas in the VISTAS modeling
domain in inverse megameters (Mm-\1\). North Carolina's top
three highest sulfate plus nitrate impairment impacts to out-of-state
Class I areas are: Wolf Island National Wilderness Area (Wolf Island)
(0.78 Mm-\1\) and Okefenokee National Wilderness Area
(Okefenokee) (0.67 Mm-\1\) in Georgia and James River Face
National Wilderness Area (James River Face) (0.45 Mm-\1\) in
Virginia.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ PSAT is Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology,
which is an option in the photochemical visibility impact modeling
performed by VISTAS that is a methodology to track the fate of both
primary and secondary PM. PSAT allows emissions to be tracked
(``tagged'') for individual facilities as well as various
combinations of sectors and geographic areas (e.g., by state). The
PSAT results provide the modeled contribution of each of the tagged
sources or groups of sources to the total visibility impacts.
\41\ DAQ did not include primary PM (directly emitted) data in
this analysis because the PSAT analyses performed by VISTAS tagged
statewide emissions of SO2 and NOX and did not
tag primary total PM emissions in the analysis after concluding that
emissions of the PM precursors SO2 and NOX,
particularly from point sources, are projected to have the largest
impact on visibility impairment in 2028 and that SO2 and
NOX are the most significant visibility impairing
pollutants from controllable anthropogenic sources.
\42\ In contrast, North Carolina's sulfate plus nitrate
impairment impacts to the State's Class I areas are: 0.95
Mm-\1\, 1.13 Mm-\1\, 1.83 Mm-\1\,
0.89 Mm-\1\, 0.43 Mm-\1\ for Linville Gorge,
Shining Rock, Swanquarter, Great Smoky Mountains, and Joyce Kilmer,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these results for the out-of-state Class I areas, North
Carolina consulted with the VISTAS states (see Section 10.1 and
Appendix F-1 of the 2022 Plan) and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) \43\ states (see Section 10.3 and Appendix
F-4 of the 2022 Plan) which contain Class I areas located nearest to
North Carolina and to which North Carolina's emissions had the highest
sulfate plus nitrate contribution to total sulfate plus nitrate
visibility impairment. The purpose of this consultation was to identify
whether North Carolina's statewide impacts to the VISTAS and MANE-VU
states are significant enough to develop coordinated emission
management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to
make reasonable progress.\44\ With respect to MANE-VU, none of the
states in this RPO contacted North Carolina for consultation with the
exception of New Hampshire and New Jersey. North Carolina's
consultation with MANE-VU, New Hampshire, and New Jersey is further
discussed in Section IV.C.2.e of this document and Section I.E of EPA's
Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ MANE-VU was established in 2001 to assist the Mid-Atlantic
and Northeast states in planning and developing their regional haze
SIP revisions. The MANE-VU states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
\44\ North Carolina did not consult with states with Class I
areas in the Central States Air Resource Agencies (CENSARA), Lake
Michigan Air Directors' Consortium (LADCO), and Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) RPO regions because North Carolina's statewide
sulfate plus nitrate contribution to total sulfate plus nitrate
impairment in the Class I areas in these regions was relatively low
(i.e., ranging from zero percent to 0.12 percent of total sulfate
plus nitrate impairment). Additionally, no states in CENSARA, LADCO,
and WRAP requested consultation with North Carolina regarding its
statewide emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA proposes to conclude that North Carolina
adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(f) regarding identification of its
statewide visibility impacts to Class I areas outside of the State and
consulting with states with Class I areas which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility due
to North Carolina's emissions. EPA proposes to agree with the State's
approach of focusing on SO2 and NOX impacts from
North Carolina on the basis that for current visibility conditions
evaluated for the 2014-2018 period, ammonium sulfate is the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant at most of the VISTAS Class I areas
followed by organic carbon and ammonium nitrate (depending on the
area).\45\ VISTAS focused on controllable emissions from point sources,
and thus, initially considered impacts from sulfates and nitrates on
regional haze at Class I areas affected by VISTAS states. EPA agrees
that North Carolina adequately identified Class I areas outside of
North Carolina that may be affected by emissions from within the State
and consulted with affected states. The information submitted by North
Carolina supports this finding, because it shows that the state
analyzed its statewide sulfate and nitrate contributions to total
visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas in Table 7-14 of
the 2022 Plan; none of
[[Page 67352]]
the Class I areas in MANE-VU and VISTAS have 2028 RPGs on the 20
percent most impaired days above the URP; \46\ with the exception of
Joyce Kilmer, the visibility impairment due to emissions from North
Carolina at in-state Class I areas is greater than the impairment due
to emission from North Carolina at out-of-state Class I areas; and the
State completed consultation with VISTAS and MANE-VU states via the RPO
processes and, in some cases, on a state-to-state basis and documented
those consultations.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See Figures 2-17 and 2-18 of the 2022 Plan for the VISTAS
Class I areas. See also section IV.C.2.a of this notice.
\46\ See Memorandum from Richard A. Wayland, OAQPS, to Regional
Air Division Directors re: Availability of Modeling Data and
Associated Technical Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028
Visibility Air Quality Modeling (September 19, 2019), available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/updated_2028_regional_haze_modeling-tsd-2019_0.pdf.
\47\ See Section IV.C.2.e of this notice and Section I.E of
EPA's TSD for additional detail regarding consultation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the URP
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to
determine the following for ``each mandatory Class I Federal area
located within the State'': baseline visibility conditions for the
clearest days and most impaired days, natural visibility conditions for
clearest days and most impaired days, progress to date for the clearest
days and most impaired days, the differences between current visibility
conditions and natural visibility conditions, and the URP. This section
also provides the option for states to propose adjustments to the URP
line for a Class I area to account for visibility impacts from
anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or the impacts from
wildland prescribed fires that were conducted for certain, specified
objectives. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
2. State Assessment: In the 2022 Plan, North Carolina calculated
baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004) in Table 2-3; current
visibility conditions (2014-2018) in Table 2-5; \48\ and natural
visibility conditions in Table 2-2 for the 20 percent most impaired and
20 percent clearest days for the State's Class I areas in deciviews as
shown in Table 1, below. North Carolina also calculated for its Class I
areas the actual progress made toward natural visibility conditions to
date since the baseline period (current minus baseline), and the
additional progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions from
current conditions (natural minus current), in deciviews, in Table 2-6
(for the 20 percent most impaired days) and Table 2-7 (for the 20
percent clearest days) as shown in Table 2, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The period 2014-2018 represents current visibility
conditions for North Carolina because it is the most recent five-
year period for which visibility monitoring data were available at
the time of SIP development.
Table 1--Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility Conditions in North Carolina's Class I Areas in Deciviews (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 20% Current 20% Natural 20%
Class I area Baseline 20% most impaired Current 20% most impaired Natural 20% most impaired
clearest days days clearest days days clearest days days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountains............................. 13.58 29.11 8.35 17.21 4.62 10.05
Joyce Kilmer...................................... 13.58 29.11 8.35 17.21 4.62 10.05
Linville Gorge.................................... 11.11 28.05 7.61 16.42 4.07 9.70
Shining Rock...................................... 7.70 28.13 4.40 15.49 2.49 * 10.25
Swanquarter....................................... 12.34 23.79 10.61 16.30 5.71 * 10.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 2022 Plan indicates in Table Ex-1-3 and Table 8-1 that natural conditions are 10.01 and 9.79 deciviews for Shining Rock and Swanquarter,
respectively. Tables Ex-1-1, Table 2-2, and Tables 2-6 reflect the correct values shown here which are derived from EPA's June 3, 2020, Technical
Addendum available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_addendum.pdf.
Table 2--Actual Progress for Visibility Conditions in North Carolina's Class I Areas in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current minus Current minus Natural minus Natural minus
Class I area baseline for 20% baseline for 20% current for 20% current for 20%
clearest days most impaired days clearest days most impaired days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountains........... -5.23 -11.90 -3.73 -7.16
Joyce Kilmer.................... -5.23 -11.90 -3.73 -7.16
Linville Gorge.................. -3.50 -11.63 -3.54 -6.72
Shining Rock.................... -3.30 -12.64 -1.91 -5.24
Swanquarter..................... -1.73 -7.49 -4.90 -6.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 of the 2022 Plan
provide the URP figures for the 20 percent most impaired days for Great
Smoky Mountains (which also represents the URP for Joyce Kilmer),
Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter, respectively. The URPs
were developed using EPA guidance \49\ and used data collected from the
IMPROVE monitoring network which is used to measure visibility
impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas covered by
the visibility program. All North Carolina Class I areas are projected
to be below the 2028 URP values for the second planning period based on
VISTAS' modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program.'' EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(December 20, 2018). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf and
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/documents/memo_data_for_regional_haze_technical_addendum.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA finds that North Carolina's Haze Plan meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) because the State provided for
its five Class I areas: baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions for the 20
[[Page 67353]]
percent clearest days and most impaired days; progress to date for the
20 percent clearest days and most impaired days; differences between
the current visibility conditions and natural visibility conditions;
and the URP for each Class I area in North Carolina. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the portions of the North Carolina SIP submission
related to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1).
C. LTS for Regional Haze
1. RHR Requirement: Each state having a Class I area within its
borders or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I area must
develop a LTS for making reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. CAA 169A(b)(2)(B). As explained in Section II of this
document, reasonable progress is achieved when all states contributing
to visibility impairment in a Class I area are implementing the
measures determined--through application of the four statutory factors
to sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be necessary to make
reasonable progress. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i). Each state's LTS must
include the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2). All new (i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome
of FFAs are necessary to make reasonable progress and must be in the
LTS. If the conclusion of a FFA and other measures necessary to make
reasonable progress for a particular source is that no new measures are
reasonable, that source's existing measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate that the source
will continue to implement those measures and will not increase its
emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress must also be in the LTS. In developing its LTS, a state must
also consider the five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
As part of its reasonable progress determinations, the state must
describe the criteria used to determine which sources or group of
sources were evaluated (i.e., subjected to FFA) for the second planning
period and how the four factors were taken into consideration in
selecting the emission reduction measures for inclusion in the LTS. 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
States may rely on technical information developed by the RPOs of
which they are members to select sources for FFA and to satisfy the
documentation requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f). Where an RPO has
performed source selection and/or FFAs (or considered the five
additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)) for its member states,
those states may rely on the RPO's analyses for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) so long as the
states have a reasonable basis to do so and all state participants in
the RPO process have approved the technical analyses. 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3)(iii). States may also satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(ii) to engage in interstate consultation with other states
that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a given Class I area under the auspices of
intra- and inter-RPO engagement.
The consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress. The documentation requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) provides that states may meet their obligations to
document the technical bases on which they are relying to determine the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress through an RPO, as long as the process has been ``approved by
all State participants.''
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) also requires that the emissions
information considered to determine the measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data.
2. State Assessment: To develop North Carolina's LTS, DAQ set
criteria to identify sources to evaluate for potential controls using
the four factors outlined in Section II.B, selected sources based on
those criteria, considered the four factors for the selected sources,
provided emissions limits and supporting conditions for adoption into
the regulatory portion of the SIP, and evaluated the five additional
factors at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
a. Source Selection Criteria: With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(i), North Carolina, through VISTAS, used a two-step source
selection process: (1) Area of Influence (AoI) analysis, and (2) PSAT
\50\ modeling for sources exceeding an AoI threshold.\51\ North
Carolina considered the four factors for sources that exceeded both the
AoI and PSAT thresholds. Both sulfates and nitrates were considered in
the source selection process. To identify sources having the most
impact on visibility at Class I areas for PSAT modeling, DAQ used an
AoI threshold of greater than or equal to three percent for sulfate and
nitrate combined at any North Carolina Class I area for all sources
within and outside of the State. Sources which exceeded North
Carolina's AoI threshold are listed in Tables 7-20 through 7-24 of the
Haze Plan. Of these sources, five sources in North Carolina exceeded
the AoI threshold for any Class I area in the State: Blue Ridge Paper
Products--Canton Mill (BRPP); Domtar Paper LLC (Domtar); \52\ Duke
Energy Carolinas LLC (DEC)--Marshall Steam Station (DEC-Marshall); PCS
Phosphate Inc.--Aurora (PCS); and SGL Carbon LLC.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ PSAT modeling is a type of photochemical modeling which
quantifies individual facility visibility impacts to an area. See
footnote 40. DAQ applied its PSAT threshold by facility whereas in
the first period, DAQ applied the threshold by emissions unit at
selected facilities.
\51\ The AoI represents the geographical area around a Class I
area in which emissions sources located in the AoI have the
potential to contribute to visibility impairment at that Class I
area. Emissions data from sources in the AoI is then evaluated to
determine which of those sources are most likely contributing to
visibility impairment at that Class I area. VISTAS used AoI analysis
for all point source facilities in the VISTAS modeling domain to
determine the relative visibility impairment impacts at each Class I
area associated with sulfate and nitrate. The results of the
facility-level AoI analyses were then used to rank and prioritize
facilities for further evaluation via PSAT.
\52\ On December 1, 2023, DAQ issued Air Quality Permit No.
04291T51 authorizing modifications to the Domtar facility, which is
available at: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/AirQuality/DocView.aspx?id=457541&dbid=0&repo=AirQuality&searchid=c271acf8-6535-4306-8cfb-9a0caa2b3d97. Because these authorized permit
modifications are subsequent to the North Carolina SIP submission,
North Carolina did not consider the modification to determine
reasonable progress in the second planning period.
\53\ See Table 7-29 on p. 227 of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina, in coordination with the other VISTAS states, set a
PSAT threshold of greater than or equal to one percent for sulfate or
nitrate. Sources identified based on the State's PSAT threshold are
listed in Tables 7-36, 7-37, and 7-38 of the 2022 Plan. Of the 19
sources that exceeded the sulfate PSAT threshold, 16 sources are
located in 10 other states and three are located in North Carolina.
North Carolina selected the three in-state sources
[[Page 67354]]
(BRPP, Domtar, and PCS) for an emissions control analysis.\54\ The
projected 2028 SO2 emissions (in tons per year (tpy)) from
BRPP, Domtar, and PCS are 483, 1,120, and 3,045, respectively.\55\ No
sources modeled for PSAT exceeded the PSAT threshold for nitrates.
Because no sources exceeded the State's PSAT threshold for nitrates and
because ammonium sulfate continues to be the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant at the North Carolina Class I areas (as discussed
in the following paragraphs), DAQ focused solely on evaluating
potential SO2 controls from BRPP, Domtar, and PCS to address
regional haze in potentially affected Class I areas. Section I.A of the
TSD provides additional detail regarding the State's source selection
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ BRPP and Domtar are pulp and paper mills. PCS is a
fertilizer plant with sulfuric acid plants on site.
\55\ See Tables 7-48, 7-55, and 7-60 on pp. 271, 275, and 279,
respectively, of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2022 Plan shows the VISTAS model projections demonstrating that
ammonium sulfate is expected to remain the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant through 2028, by a factor of four or greater, over
ammonium nitrate at Class I areas in North Carolina.\56\ In Section 7.4
of the 2022 Plan, DAQ explains the VISTAS analyses relied upon to
support the State's focus on SO2 control evaluations.
Additionally, Section 10.4.1 of the Haze Plan provides the State's
responses to FLM comments on the exclusion of NOX control
evaluations from the FFAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ See Figures 2-7 through 2-18 and Figure 10-10 of the 2022
Plan. Figures 2-7 through 2-10 provide 2009-2013 speciated PM data
for North Carolina's Class I areas showing that ammonium sulfate is
the dominant visibility impairing pollutant. Figures 2-11 and 2-12
provide speciated PM data for 2009-2013 for the VISTAS Class I areas
and neighboring areas on the 20 percent most impaired days and 20
percent clearest days, respectively. Figures 2-13 to 2-18 show the
speciated PM data for North Carolina's Class I areas for the period
2014-2018 showing that ammonium sulfate is the dominant visibility
impairing pollutant. Figures 2-17 and 2-18 provide speciated PM data
for 2014-2018 for the VISTAS Class I areas and neighboring areas on
the 20 percent most impaired days and 20 percent clearest days,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although ammonium nitrate contributions to light extinction have
increased in recent years (2016-2018), sulfate is still the highest
contributor to visibility impairment in North Carolina's Class I areas.
DAQ provided light extinction data on the 20 percent most impaired and
20 percent clearest days for the North Carolina Class I areas for the
2009-2013 modeling base period and the 2014-2018 current conditions
period which show that ammonium sulfate continues to be the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant on the 20 percent most impaired
visibility days during the 2009-2013 period and 2014-2018 period.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See Section 2.5.2 (particularly Figures 2-7 through 2-11
for the 2009-2013 period and Figures 2-13 through 2-18 for the 2014-
2018 period), and Section 10.4.1 of the 2022 Plan related to
ammonium nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section 10.4.1, DAQ reviewed more recent visibility monitoring
data for the period 2015-2019 from the IMPROVE monitoring network for
Great Smoky Mountains, Linville Gorge, and Shining Rock.\58\ Table 3,
below, summarizes the percent contribution on the 20 percent most
impaired days at Great Smoky Mountains (also Joyce Kilmer), Linville
Gorge, and Shining Rock for certain PM species (i.e., ammonium sulfate,
ammonium nitrate, and organic carbon) in 2009-2013 versus 2015-
2019.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ DAQ did not include 2015-2019 IMPROVE monitoring data for
Swanquarter in Section 10.4.1 because NPS and USFS did not request
that DAQ consider more recent visibility monitoring data for
Swanquarter.
\59\ The data in Table 1 is derived from Figures 10-1, 10-2, and
10-3 of the 2022 Plan. Swanquarter speciation data is shown in
Figures 2-10 through 2-12 and 2-16 through 2-18 of the 2022 Plan.
\60\ DAQ provided IMPROVE monitoring data in Figures 10-1, 10-2,
and 10-3 regarding Great Smoky Mountains (also for Joyce Kilmer),
Linville Gorge, and Shining Rock. For Swanquarter, 2015-2019 IMPROVE
data for the 20 percent most impaired days are: 50 percent, 17
percent, and 17 percent for ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, and
organic carbon, respectively. See https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/rhr-summary-data/ data/.
Table 3--Five-Year Average (2009-2013 vs. 2015-2019) Percent (%) Particle Contributions to Light Extinction for 20% Most Impaired Days at Great Smoky
Mountains,* Linville Gorge, and Shining Rock \60\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great smoky mountains Linville gorge Shining rock
PM species -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013 (%) 2015-2019 (%) 2009-2013 (%) 2015-2019 (%) 2009-2013 (%) 2015-2019 (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammonium Sulfate........................................ 76.3 54.4 77.2 56.9 74.5 58.1
Ammonium Nitrate........................................ 5.2 16.6 2.5 8.0 5.5 10.3
Organic Carbon.......................................... 11.1 17.4 12.5 22.4 12.5 19.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Monitoring data for Great Smoky Mountains serves as the IMPROVE data for Joyce Kilmer.
Figures 7-27 (Swanquarter), 7-28 (Shining Rock), 7-29 (Linville
Gorge), 7-30 (Joyce Kilmer), and 7-31 (Great Smoky Mountains) in the
2022 Plan show that the majority of 2028 predicted nitrate light
extinction on the 20 percent most impaired days at North Carolina's
Class I areas is not caused by NOX emissions from EGU and
non-EGU point sources.\61\ At Shining Rock, Linville Gorge, Joyce
Kilmer, and the Great Smoky Mountains, projected 2028 total sulfate
extinction is greater than 17 Mm-1 and total projected 2028
total nitrate extinction is less than 3.5 Mm-1. At
Swanquarter, the projected 2028 sulfate extinction is 16.6
Mm-1 and the projected 2028 nitrate extinction is 4.5
Mm-1. DAQ states that North Carolina sources contribute a
small percentage to total nitrate impairment in all cases (ranging from
less than one percent of all nitrate visibility impairment at the Great
Smoky Mountains to 13 percent at Swanquarter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Figure 7-26 provides the 2028 visibility impairment from
nitrate on the 20 percent most impaired days for all 18 Class I
Areas in VISTAS. The figure shows the EGU and non-EGU contributions
to total nitrate derived light extinction in 2028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAQ states that it is unclear why ammonium nitrate has started to
increase at some but not all VISTAS Class I areas while point and
mobile source NOX emissions have been declining. VISTAS
modeling for 2028 suggests that sources outside of North Carolina may
be the likely contributor. DAQ indicates that further research is
needed to identify the emission sources and geographic locations of
those sources contributing to the ammonium nitrate fraction of
PM2.5 contributing to regional haze. DAQ notes that at some
locations, one ton of SO2 reduction can have anywhere from
twice to more than 100 times the impact on visibility impairment as one
ton of NOX reduction.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See pp. 333-335 and Table 10-8 of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67355]]
In Section 7.7.3.2 of the 2022 Plan, DAQ reviewed North Carolina
facilities that were not selected for PSAT modeling and which had an
AoI contribution between one and three percent for one or more Class I
areas in North Carolina and which were not selected for FFA evaluation.
This review included the eight Duke Energy power plants with coal units
in North Carolina which, with the exception of DEC-Marshall, did not
meet North Carolina's AoI threshold (see Table 7-43 of the 2022 Plan).
DAQ reviewed existing SO2 and NOX controls for
the Duke Energy facilities with coal units and non-EGUs with an AOI
contribution between one and three percent sulfate plus nitrate and
based on this review, DAQ did not identify any uncontrolled or lightly
controlled facilities that were large contributors to anthropogenic
light extinction at any of North Carolina's Class I areas that were
missed by North Carolina's source selection process.
b. Consideration of the Four Factors: North Carolina considered
each of the four CAA factors for BRPP and Domtar and described how the
four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the
SO2 measures for inclusion in the State's LTS. For PCS, DAQ
considered the four CAA factors for its existing measures for the
affected units and determined that there are no technically feasible
control measures beyond the existing measures to further reduce
SO2 emissions, and thus, no new measures were evaluated
using the four factors. The following subsections summarize the State's
evaluation of these facilities. Additional detail is provided in
Section I.B. of the TSD.
i. BRPP: During 2017 to 2019, BRPP implemented SO2
controls on existing processes and replaced two coal-fired boilers with
new natural gas-fired boilers to comply with a Special Order by Consent
(SOC) between the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
and BRPP.\63\ As a result of the SOC, BRPP reduced actual annual
SO2 emissions by 93 percent (5,470 tons per year) from 2017-
level emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Section 7.8.1.1 of the 2022 Plan. North Carolina and
BRPP entered into the SOC on October 9, 2017, to implement facility
process modifications, upgrade existing control equipment, as well
as to install new control equipment to comply with the Boiler
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard by May 20,
2019, that cumulatively resulted in the control and reduction of
facility-wide SO2 emissions. The SOC is available in
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0001 on www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FFA focused on the No. 4 Power Boiler, Riley Bark Boiler, and
the Riley Coal Boiler because these three boilers comprise 90.2 percent
of the BRPP's total 2019 actual emissions and 91.8 percent of the
BRRP's total 2028 projected SO2 emissions.\64\ These units
are equipped with wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD).\65\ \66\ To
complete the cost of compliance analysis, BRPP evaluated replacing coal
with ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) (all three boilers) and adding dry
sorbent injection (DSI) (for the Riley Coal Boiler and No. 4 Power
Boiler). Table 7-54 of the 2022 Plan shows that of the new control
measures considered, the lowest cost effectiveness was $13,477 per ton
of SO2 removed using a 3.25 percent interest rate and a 30-
year equipment life in the cost calculations. The State notes that
based on the FFA, BRPP identified no cost-effective control measures to
further reduce SO2 emissions for the three boilers
evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Table 7-48 on p. 271 of the 2022 Plan.
\65\ The SO2 removal efficiency from the existing
control measures at the Riley Coal Boiler, Riley Bark Boiler, and
the No. 4 Power Boiler is approximately 90 percent. See Section
7.8.1.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\66\ WFGD, also referred to as wet scrubbers, are a type of
control technology which removes SO2 and other pollutants
from gaseous exhaust streams. WFGD is considered the most efficient
way to remove SO2 from gaseous waste streams if the
removal efficiency is optimized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the other statutory factors, the State identifies the
remaining useful life of the source is estimated at more than 25 years,
and the equipment life of the control options evaluated is 30 years for
both the DSI and ULSD options. The State identifies that the time
necessary to comply for both the DSI and ULSD options is at least three
years to accommodate time for corporate funding approval, permitting,
re-engineering, and planned outage scheduling. Regarding energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, DAQ explains that
adding DSI would increase energy usage as well as PM emissions from
materials handling and landfill operations and it would also decrease
the useful life of the mill landfill and increase truck traffic on
local streets. Regarding ULSD, no significant energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts were identified.
Given the 93 percent decrease in SO2 emissions due to
the SOC and the State's determination that there are no cost-effective
control SO2 measures available based on a review of the four
factors, DAQ concluded that only existing SO2 measures are
necessary for reasonable progress for the second planning period at
BRPP's Riley Coal Boiler, Riley Bark Boiler, and the No. 4 Power
Boiler. No source-specific changes were proposed to the North Carolina
SIP for BRPP because these existing SO2 measures are already
incorporated into the SIP.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See 85 FR 74884 (November 24, 2020); 40 CFR 52.1770(d). The
SIP contains specific SO2 permit limits and associated
operating restrictions; monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting;
and testing compliance parameters from BRPP's title V permit (No.
08961T29) reflecting the requirements of the SOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Domtar: The FFA for Domtar focused on Hog Fuel Boiler 2
(``HFB2'') because this unit is projected to emit approximately 90
percent of the facility's total projected SO2 emissions in
2028 (1,010 tpy out of 1,120 tpy).\68\ A hog fuel boiler at a paper
mill typically burns wood waste known as ``hog fuel'' to generate
electricity for the mill. In addition, Domtar currently routes the
majority of its noncondensible waste gases through HFB2. The sulfur
compounds from the waste gases accounts for the vast majority of the
SO2 emissions. HFB2 uses low sulfur fuels and inherent bark
scrubbing to control SO2 emissions. To complete the cost of
compliance analysis, Domtar evaluated HFB2 for WFGD and DSI.\69\ Table
7-58 of the 2022 Plan provides summary cost data showing that the cost
effectiveness of the addition of a WFGD would be $3,660/ton and the
addition of DSI would cost $22,092/ton of SO2 removed using
a 3.25 percent interest rate, a 30-year equipment life, and assuming a
95 percent SO2 control efficiency for the scrubber and a 50
percent control efficiency for DSI.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ With respect to Domtar's Hog Fuel Boiler 1 (``HFB1''), this
unit is projected to emit 12 tpy SO2 in 2028. HFB1 was
not included in the FFA because it is currently equipped to burn
only natural gas and biomass with No. 2 fuel oil as a backup fuel.
Also, based on updated 2028 emissions projections data, the unit
will only contribute two percent of the facility's total
SO2 emissions. In the docket to this proposed rule is a
legible copy of the May 12, 2020, letter from Domtar to DAQ provided
in Appendix G-2a of the Haze Plan.
\69\ In addition to the FFA, DAQ provided, as supplemental
information, that the use of a WFGD on HFB2 would improve visibility
by 0.03 deciview and improve visual range by approximately 0.16 mile
at Swanquarter and that the WFGD would reduce Domtar's contribution
to total visibility impairment at Swanquarter by 0.33 percent (0.152
Mm-1). DAQ did not rely upon this supplemental
information for the Domtar FFA analysis and conclusions.
\70\ In Appendix I of the Haze Plan, DAQ notes that HFB2 is used
as a control device for several process gas streams at Domtar. DAQ
checked EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse available at https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information
and was unable to find documentation of similar emissions units to
HFB2 to compare costs of WFGD at this type of unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the other statutory factors, the remaining useful life of
HFB2 is 20 years or more, and the equipment life assumed in the cost
calculations is 30 years for both the WFGD and DSI control options. The
time necessary to
[[Page 67356]]
comply for both the WFGD and DSI options is at least three years due to
corporate funding approval, permitting, re-engineering, and planned
outage scheduling. Regarding energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, additional electricity would be needed to
operate a DSI system, and a DSI system would create additional solid
waste. Regarding the WFGD, additional electricity and water would be
needed to run the system and additional fan power would be required
overcome the additional pressure drop through the WFGD. Other
environmental and energy impacts associated with operating a WFGD
include generation and disposal of wastewater.
DAQ concluded that there are no cost-effective control
SO2 measures available based on a review of the four factors
and that only existing SO2 measures at HFB2 are necessary
for reasonable progress during the second planning period. North
Carolina identified permit conditions reflecting these existing
measures in Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan for incorporation into the
North Carolina SIP. In its Commitment Letter, DAQ committed to revise
certain permit conditions and submit, no later than one year from the
effective date of a final conditional approval action (should EPA
finalize the proposed partial conditional approval), a SIP revision
requesting incorporation of the revised permit conditions and
additional existing specific permit conditions into the SIP. DAQ's
commitments are discussed in Section IV.C.3.b.ii of this document.
iii. PCS: The FFA for PCS focused on evaluating Sulfuric Acid
Plants (SAPs) 5, 6, and 7 for additional SO2 controls
because these three SAPs accounted for over 97 percent of total
facility SO2 emissions in 2016 and are estimated to account
for 94 percent of the total facility SO2 emissions in 2028.
During 2017-2019, PCS implemented upgrades to enhance the
SO2 conversions in the catalytic systems on SAPs 5, 6, and 7
pursuant to a consent decree with EPA entered on February 26, 2015.\71\
Table 7-61 of the 2022 Plan summarizes the SO2 emissions
reductions from the upgrades involving a dual absorption process with
cesium catalyst.\72\ PCS' title V permit includes the SO2
emissions limits required under the consent decree and prohibits
relaxation of these emissions limits after the consent decree has been
terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ The consent decree entered by the Court on February 26,
2015, is located in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. This
consent decree terminated on April 3, 2023.
\72\ See Appendix G-3 of the 2022 Plan for additional
information regarding the dual absorption process with cesium
catalyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For PCS, the State evaluated whether there are any technically
feasible control technologies available for SAPs 5, 6, and 7 at the
facility beyond the current SO2 emissions control technology
in place (dual absorption process with cesium catalyst) to further
reduce SO2 emissions at these units and concluded that there
are none. Given this conclusion and the SO2 reductions at
PCS due to the upgrades, DAQ concluded that only the existing measures
for SAPs 5, 6, and 7 are necessary for reasonable progress during the
second planning period. North Carolina identified permit conditions
reflecting these existing measures in Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan
for incorporation into the North Carolina SIP.\73\ In its Commitment
Letter, DAQ committed to submit, no later than one year from the
effective date of a final conditional approval action (should EPA
finalize the proposed partial conditional approval), a SIP revision
requesting incorporation of additional existing specific permit
conditions into the SIP. DAQ's commitments are discussed in Section
IV.C.3.b.iii of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ In an email dated March 28, 2024, DAQ clarified that the
text of Condition 2.5 A.1.p of PCS' title V permit, proposed for
adoption into the SIP on page 289 of the Haze Plan, was
inadvertently excluded from the excerpts of permit conditions
provided in Section 7.8.3.2 of the Haze Plan under ``Section 2.5
A.1.k through p--Emissions Monitoring Requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to emissions
information documentation pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section
4 of the 2022 Plan explains the State's use of emissions inventories to
develop the plan with additional documentation provided in Appendix B.
North Carolina, through VISTAS, developed a 2011 statewide base year
emissions inventory which was used to project emissions out to 2028,
the end of the second planning period. DAQ also evaluated emissions
data from 2017, the year of the most recent triennial emissions data
available at the time of the development of the 2022 Plan.\74\ DAQ also
provided annual, statewide anthropogenic SO2,
NOX, and PM2.5 emissions data from 2011 through
2019 for North Carolina in Tables 13-9, 13-10, and 13-11, respectively,
of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 2017 emissions data is included in the following tables and
figures in the 2022 Plan: Table 7-41 (SO2) and 7-42
(NOX) for certain non-EGU sources in North Carolina;
Tables 13-9 (SO2), 13-10 (NOX), 13-11
(PM2.5), 13-12 (PM10), 13-13 (VOC) for
anthropogenic statewide emissions of these pollutants; Table 13-14
(SO2, NOX for all RPOs); Figures 13-9
(SO2), 13-10 (NOX), 13-11 (PM2.5),
13-12 (PM10), 13-13 (VOC)) for anthropogenic statewide
emissions of these pollutants; and Figures 13-14 and 13-15
(SO2, NOX for all RPOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to modeling information documentation pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Sections 5 and 6 of the 2022 Plan describe the
modeling methods used to develop the plan with additional documentation
provided in Appendix E and results of the RPG modeling in Section 8 of
the plan. Appendix D contains AoI analyses documentation.
With respect to cost and engineering information documentation
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), Section 7.8 of the 2022 Plan
details the State's analysis of proposed FFAs for BRPP and Domtar
located in Appendix G which evaluated the four factors, including the
cost of compliance factor, and provided detailed cost calculations for
potential new control measures assessed as part of the engineering
analyses.
With respect to monitoring information documentation pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii), the State assessed baseline (2000-2004), current
(2014-2018), and natural visibility conditions for North Carolina's
Class I areas in Section 2 of the 2022 Plan with supporting information
located in Appendix C.
Section I.D of the TSD provides a more detailed summary of the
State's assessment of the documentation of the technical basis for the
2022 Plan under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v).
d. Assessment of the Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv): With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), North
Carolina considered each of the five additional factors in developing
the State's LTS and evaluated their relevancy for the second planning
period. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), North Carolina
referenced the State's emissions inventory development for the base
year of 2011 as projected out to 2028 for the requirement to assess
emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs,
including measures to address Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI). With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), North
Carolina summarized the State's existing regulations that mitigate the
impacts of construction activities by requiring control of erosion,
siltation, and pollution from construction activities and requiring
subject facilities to control PM from fugitive dust emission sources
generated within plant boundaries.\75\ With respect to 40 CFR
[[Page 67357]]
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), North Carolina summarized existing and planned
source retirements in Section 7.2.2 and Section 8.3.5 of the 2022 Plan.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), North Carolina considered
the State's Guidelines for Managing Smoke from Forestry Burning
Operations to mitigate PM2.5 emissions and regional haze
impacts associated with prescribed burning.\76\ With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), North Carolina pointed to the development and
evaluation of the 2028 RPGs for the North Carolina Class I areas which
reflect the net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the second period. Section I.C
of the TSD provides a more detailed summary of the State's assessment
of the five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ DAQ explained that fine soils were a relatively minor
contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired
days at the Class I areas in North Carolina during the baseline
period of 2000-2004.
\76\ DAQ notes that elemental carbon is the primary visibility
impairing pollutant related to wildfires, prescribed wildland fires,
and agricultural burning. Elemental carbon is a relatively minor
contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired
days from the base period (2000-2004) through 2018 at the Class I
areas in North Carolina based on IMPROVE monitoring data as
discussed in Section 2.4 of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Interstate Consultation: North Carolina consulted with states
\77\ and RPOs that identified North Carolina sources as impacting those
states' (or states within the RPOs') Class I areas, and DAQ consulted
with the 10 states with one or more sources exceeding North Carolina's
PSAT threshold at one or more of North Carolina's Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ New Hampshire and New Jersey are the only states that
requested consultation with North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. State/RPOs Requesting Consultation with North Carolina:
a. MANE-VU Ask: The following summarizes the conclusions of
consultation related to the MANE-VU Ask for North Carolina.\78\ Section
I.E of the TSD provides a more detailed summary of the State's
interstate consultation pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ MANE-VU refers to the emission reduction measures
identified in other states as being necessary to make reasonable
progress as ``Asks.'' The MANE-VU Ask to states outside of the MANE-
VU Region is available at: https://otcair.org/manevu/Upload/Publication/Formal%20Actions/MANE-VU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20Final%208-25-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MANE-VU Ask for states outside of MANE-VU addresses both
statewide impacts to visibility and specific emissions units'
visibility impacts. States that contributed greater than or equal to
two percent of the visibility impairment to a Class I area and had an
average mass impact of over one percent (0.01 microgram per cubic
meter) on a statewide basis were identified for consultation and
included in the Inter-RPO Ask. Additionally, any emissions units having
the potential for a 3.0 Mm-1 or greater light extinction
impact on any MANE-VU Class I area based on CALPUFF modeling of 2011
SO2 and NOX emissions were identified for
consultation in the MANE-VU Ask.
In a letter dated October 16, 2017, MANE-VU requested consultation
with North Carolina on the basis that North Carolina was identified as
impacting MANE-VU Class I area(s) on both a statewide basis and
emission unit basis. On a statewide basis, MANE-VU claimed that North
Carolina's percent mass-weighted sulfate and nitrate contributions from
North Carolina to MANE-VU Class I areas in 2015 exceeds the RPO's two
percent threshold for five Class I areas in MANE-VU.\79\ On an
emissions unit basis, the No.1 Power Boiler at North Carolina's
Kapstone Kraft Corporation (``Kapstone'') was identified as having the
potential to exceed the 3.0 Mm-1 or greater visibility
impact threshold set by MANE-VU for any Class I area in the MANE-VU
region.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix F-4 of the Haze Plan.
\80\ The August 25, 2017, MANE-VU document identifying maximum
potential visibility impacts from the No. 1 Power Boiler at Kapstone
Kraft Corporation in North Carolina is located at: https://otcair.org/manevu/Upload/Publication/Formal%20Actions/MANE-VU%20Inter-Regional%20Ask%20Final%208-25-2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding statewide visibility impacts to MANE-VU Class I areas,
North Carolina disagreed with MANE-VU that North Carolina's statewide
emissions are impacting visibility at any MANE-VU Class I areas. North
Carolina's viewpoints are reflected in the January 27, 2018, letter
from VISTAS to MANE-VU. To resolve the disagreement, North Carolina
sent a response letter on February 16, 2018, to MANE-VU and noted
several disagreements with MANE-VU's analysis.
Regarding Kapstone's visibility impacts to MANE-VU Class I areas,
in a letter dated February 16, 2018, DAQ clarified the status of the
No. 1 Power Boiler at KapStone that was initially identified in a
September 5, 2017, document from MANE-VU as having the potential for a
maximum 6.0 Mm-1 light extinction impact on a MANE-VU Class
I area based on CALPUFF modeling of the facility's 2011 SO2
and NOX emissions.\81\ DAQ reviewed the modeling
documentation and found that the maximum potential light extinction
impact modeled for the power boiler was 0.28 Mm-1 for MANE-
VU Class I areas and 0.47 Mm-1 for Class I areas near the
MANE-VU region shown in Table 1 of the 2018 letter. Based on
discussions with MANE-VU representatives, there was agreement that the
initial light extinction values shown in Table l of the 2018 letter are
correct for the No. 1 Power Boiler and that the boiler should not be
included in the MANE-VU Ask.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The September 5. 2017, MANE-VU document, ``Selection of
States for MANE-VU Regional Haze Consultation (2018)'', is available
at: https://otcair.org/manevuUpload/Publication/Reports/MANE-VU%20Contributing%20State%20Analysis%20Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina documented the State's responses and viewpoints with
respect to the MANE-VU Ask in Section 10 and Appendix F-4 of the 2022
Plan. North Carolina proposes that it fulfilled the consultation
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) by the State's active
participation in the MANE-VU consultation process and by the State's
documented responses to MANE-VU. Thus, DAQ determined that no further
action is required under the RHR to address MANE-VU's requests.
b. Proposed Plan Comments from MANE-VU, New Hampshire, and New
Jersey: MANE-VU, New Hampshire, and New Jersey provided written
comments on the North Carolina haze plan proposed for public comment at
the State level.\82\ In total, there are five MANE-VU Inter-RPO Asks
for states outside of the MANE-VU Region. Regarding Asks 1, 4, and 5,
MANE-VU, New Hampshire, and New Jersey acknowledged in their comments
on the North Carolina prehearing plan that the existing measures in
North Carolina address these three asks. Regarding Ask 2, MANE-VU
determined that this ask does not apply to North Carolina. Regarding
Ask 3, DAQ reviewed the MANE-VU, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
recommendations for the State to adopt an ultra-low sulfur fuel (ULSF)
oil standard consistent with Ask 3 and explained in the 2022 Plan why
it would not be reasonable to do so. DAQ evaluated residual and
distillate oil use in North Carolina and concluded that adopting an
ULSF standard would provide ``very little'' reduction in SO2
emissions or any noticeable improvement in visibility in Class I areas
in North Carolina and in downwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ MANE-VU, New Hampshire, and New Jersey submitted a letter
dated October 12, 2021, and New Jersey also submitted a letter dated
October 15, 2021, providing comments on North Carolina's proposed
haze plan. These letters are included in Appendix I of the 2022
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67358]]
ii. North Carolina's Requests for Consultation with Other States:
Consultation with other states with sources contributing to regional
haze at North Carolina's Class I areas is discussed in Section 10 and
Appendix F of the 2022 Plan. As listed in Tables 7-37 and 7-38 of the
2022 Plan, North Carolina requested a FFA of 16 sources in 10 other
states because these sources exceeded the State's sulfate PSAT
threshold at one or more of North Carolina's Class I areas.\83\ DAQ
documented the responses from the 10 states in Section 10.1.1 of the
2022 Plan. Section I.E.3 of the TSD provides more details regarding the
consultation related to these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The 16 sources are: Entergy Arkansas Inc-Independence Plant
in Arkansas; Plant Bowen in Georgia; Gibson and Indiana Michigan
Power DBA AEP Rockport in Indiana; Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)-
Shawnee in Kentucky; New Madrid Power Plant-Marston in Missouri;
Cardinal Power Plant--Cardinal Operating Company (Cardinal Power
Plant); Duke Energy Ohio--Wm. H. Zimmer Station (Duke-Zimmer); and
General James M. Gavin Power Plant (Gavin Power Plant) in Ohio;
Homer City Gen LP/Center and Genon NE Mgmt Co/Keystone Station in
Pennsylvania; Eastman and TVA-Cumberland in Tennessee; Jewell Coke
Company LLP in Virginia; and Allegheny--Harrison and Monongahela--
Pleasants Power Station in West Virginia. North Carolina requested
FFAs of non-VISTAS sources through VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA has reviewed DAQ's source selection
criteria, consideration of the four factors, determinations of controls
necessary for reasonable progress, submitted permit conditions,
documentation of technical basis, interstate consultation, and
consideration of the five additional factors. Based on this review, EPA
finds that North Carolina's LTS satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) but for
concerns with the legal and practicable enforceability of certain
Domtar and PCS permit conditions identified for incorporation into the
SIP. As discussed above, North Carolina has committed to provide EPA
with a SIP submission no later than one year from the effective date of
a final conditional approval action that would adequately address the
legal and practicable enforceability concerns identified in this
document. Therefore, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
sections of the Haze Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). If North
Carolina submits the required SIP revision by the specified deadline
and EPA approves the submission, then the identified enforceability
concerns will be cured and the conditional approval of the sections of
the Haze Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) will be converted to a
full approval. Sections IV.C.3.b.ii and IV.C.3.b.iii of this document
discuss the enforceability concerns with the Domtar and PCS permit
conditions, respectively, and North Carolina's commitments to resolve
these concerns. Although EPA finds that North Carolina's LTS satisfies
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) but for the enforceability concerns with certain
Domtar and PCS permit conditions identified for incorporation into the
SIP, EPA is soliciting comment on the adequacy of DAQ's analyses,
including the FFAs, determination of controls necessary for reasonable
progress, and the adequacy of the submitted permit conditions,
including associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and
whether the State has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i)
through (iv).
a. Source Selection Criteria: EPA finds that North Carolina's
source selection was reasonable. The Haze Plan supports this finding,
because it contains information such as Appendix C which includes
monitoring and meteorological data used to support selection of
sources; Appendix D which provides documentation supporting the AoI
analyses (first step of the State's source selection process); and
Appendix E which details the visibility and source apportionment data
used and results from the PSAT modeling (second step of the State's
source selection process). However, EPA finds this source selection
requirement is not separable from the overarching requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) to establish a LTS. As explained previously in this
document, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve North Carolina's
LTS due to concerns with the legal and practical enforceability of
certain permit conditions identified in the Haze Plan for incorporation
into the SIP. Accordingly, EPA finds that the Haze Plan will only meet
all requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) if North Carolina meets its
commitment to submit the corrective SIP revision described in its
Commitment Letter no later than one year from the effective date of a
final conditional approval action, should EPA finalize the proposed
partial conditional approval, and EPA approves that SIP revision. North
Carolina included a description of the criteria that the State used to
determine which sources the State evaluated for emissions controls.
EPA also finds that North Carolina's source selection resulted in a
reasonable set of sources contributing to visibility impairment at
Class I areas affected by North Carolina's sources. AoI and PSAT are
acceptable and well-established methods for selecting sources for a
control analysis and they enable the identification of the sources that
have the largest impacts on visibility at Class I areas in North
Carolina and neighboring states,\84\ and the State identified three
North Carolina sources for a control evaluation and identified 16 out-
of-state sources for which they requested a control evaluation through
interstate consultation. Additionally, statewide SO2
emissions are expected to decrease in the second planning period from
2019 levels of 34,712 tpy SO2 to projected 2028 levels of
32,644 tpy SO2 (a six percent reduction) which occurred
after a 63 percent decrease in statewide SO2 emissions from
2011 to 2018 by 74,830 tpy SO2, and statewide NOX
emissions are expected to decrease in the second planning period from
2019 levels of 223,264 tpy NOX to projected 2028 levels of
138,986 tpy NOX (approximately a 38 percent reduction) which
occurred after a 37 percent decrease in statewide NOX
emissions from 2011 to 2018 by 137,820 tpy NOX.\85\
Additional emissions reductions from permanent shutdowns which have not
been reflected in the 2028 emissions projections and 2028 RPGs are 204
tons of SO2 and 208 tons of SO2 based on 2016
actual and projected 2028 SO2 emissions, respectively, and
248 tons of NOX and 287 tons of NOX based on 2016
and projected 2028 NOX emissions, respectively. Visibility
conditions in North Carolina's Class I areas in 2028 are estimated to
improve since the 2000-2004 baseline period by 14.1 deciviews (Great
Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer), 13.8 deciviews (Linville Gorge),
14.8 deciviews (Shining Rock), and 8.5 deciviews (Swanquarter).\86\
Specific to the second planning period, visibility conditions in North
Carolina's Class I areas in 2028 are estimated to improve since the
2014-2018 period by 2.2 deciviews (Great Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer,
Linville Gorge, Shining Rock), and 1.0 deciview (Swanquarter). These
projected second planning period visibility improvements represent
approximately \87\ 30 percent (Great
[[Page 67359]]
Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer); 32 percent (Linville Gorge), 40
percent (Shining Rock), and 16 percent (Swanquarter) of the additional
progress needed to reach natural conditions at each Class I area.
Additionally, using the most recently available 20 percent most
impaired days IMPROVE data (2018-2022) \88\ for the 20 percent most
impaired days,\89\ in the first four years of the second planning
period, North Carolina's Class I areas have already achieved 25 percent
(Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer),\90\ 25 percent (Linville
Gorge), 27 percent (Shining Rock), and 21 percent (Swanquarter) of the
remaining progress needed to reach natural conditions. Also, North
Carolina is not contributing to visibility impairment at any Class I
areas above the URP, and the State appropriately focused on controlling
point source SO2 emissions based on data showing ammonium
sulfate is the dominant visibility impairing pollutant at the North
Carolina Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ The State used the AoI process because it identifies the
largest sources with potential visibility impacts to Class I areas
and then used sophisticated photochemical source apportionment
modeling to identify specific sources for control evaluations. See
also 2019 Guidance, pp. 12-13.
\85\ North Carolina's statewide emissions of SO2 and
NOX decreased during the period from 2011 to 2018 from
118,721 tpy SO2 to 43,891 tpy SO2 and
decreased from 369,496 to 231,676 tpy NOX. See Tables 13-
9 and 13-10 of the Haze Plan.
\86\ See Table 8-1 of the Haze Plan.
\87\ See visibility data for the 20 percent most impaired days
data from Table 8-1 of the Haze Plan. Percentage of progress toward
natural conditions = [((2014-2018 IMPROVE data)-(2028 RPG))/((2014-
2018 IMPROVE data)-(Natural visibility conditions))] x 100. Example
calculation for Great Smoky Mountains: [(17.21-15.03)/(17.21-10.05)]
x 100 = 30.4 percent.
\88\ The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for the 20 percent most impaired
days was obtained from https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/rhr-summary-data/ under the header ``Means for Impairment Metric:''. The
IMPROVE data includes visibility monitoring data for each Class I
area. This data was filtered for each Class I area, listed as
``GRSM1'' (Great Smoky Mountains whose data also represents Joyce
Kilmer), ``LIGO1'' (Linville Gorge), ``SHRO1'' (Shining Rock),
``SWAN1'' (Swanquarter), respectively, (in column ``A'', titled
``site''). Then data was filtered for the years 2018 through 2022
(using column ``B'' titled ``year''). These data points were then
filtered for the 20 percent most impaired days, indicated by ``90''
(in column ``C'' titled ``impairment_Group''). The resulting data
points for each North Carolina Class I area within the ``haze_dv''
column ``AK'', corresponding to each of the five years, were
averaged to determine the 20 percent most impaired days for the
2018-2022 five-year period. The 2018-2022 IMPROVE data for North
Carolina's Class I areas are: 15.4 deciviews (Great Smoky Mountains
and Joyce Kilmer), 14.7 deciviews (Linville Gorge), 14.0 deciviews
(Shining Rock), and 14.9 deciviews (Swanquarter).
\89\ The 2014-2018 IMPROVE data was provided by North Carolina
in Table 8-1 of the Haze Plan.
\90\ Percentage of progress toward natural conditions = [((2014-
2018 IMPROVE data)-(2018-2022 IMPROVE data))/((2014-2018 IMPROVE
data)-(Natural visibility conditions))] x100. Example calculation
for Great Smoky Mountains: [(17.21-15.4)/(17.21-10.05)] x 100 = 25
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although North Carolina did not select any Duke Energy sources for
analysis, EPA conducted further review of five Duke Energy facilities
to evaluate the reasonableness of North Carolina's source selection--
DEC--Belews Creek Steam Station (DEC-Belews Creek), DEC--Cliffside
Steam Station (DEC-Cliffside), DEC-Marshall, Duke Energy Progress, LLC
(DEP)--Mayo Electric Generating Plant (DEP-Mayo), and DEP--Roxboro
Steam Electric Plant (DEP-Roxboro). EPA identified these five
facilities for further review because, in the VISTAS AoI analysis, DEC-
Belews Creek, DEC-Cliffside, and DEC-Marshall ranked in the top 10
facility sulfate impacts at Shining Rock; DEC-Belews Creek and DEC-
Cliffside ranked in the top 10 facility sulfate impacts at Linville
Gorge; DEP-Roxboro ranked in the top 10 facility sulfate impacts at
Swanquarter; DEP-Roxboro ranked in the top 10 facility sulfate impacts
at James River Face in Virginia; and DEP-Mayo ranked in the top 20
facility sulfate impacts at James River Face. EPA assessed whether
these five Duke Energy facilities are effectively controlled for
SO2 \91\ and whether any cost-effective new emissions
reduction measures for SO2 would have likely resulted from a
FFA had these sources met the State's source selection criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ EPA did not evaluate NOX controls for these
facilities because EPA proposes to agree with North Carolina's
conclusion that ammonium sulfate continues to be the dominant
visibility impairing pollutant at North Carolina's Class I areas.
See Section IV.C.2.a of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2019 Guidance provides several scenarios in which EPA believes
it may be reasonable for a state not to select a particular source for
further analysis. Two of these scenarios are applicable to the five
Duke facilities--a coal-fired EGU that has add-on flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) and meets the applicable alternative
SO2 emission limit of 0.2 pound (lb) per million British
Thermal Units (MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) in the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS) rule for power plants; \92\ and an EGU that, during
the first period, installed a FGD system that operates year-round with
an effectiveness of at least 90 percent. The 2019 Guidance states that
in both cases, it is unlikely that an analysis of control measures for
a source already equipped with a scrubber and meeting a 0.20 lb/MMBtu
limit or greater than 90 percent efficiency would conclude that even
more stringent control of SO2 is necessary to make
reasonable progress. See 2019 Guidance at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ The MATS rule is located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the five Duke sources are equipped with WFGD and are
subject to the alternative SO2 emissions limit from the MATS
rule. EPA evaluated the WFGD SO2 control efficiencies at
each of the coal-fired units at these five sources as follows: DEC-
Belews Creek (Units 1, 2); DEC-Cliffside (Units 5 and 6); DEC-Marshall
(Units 1-4); DEP-Mayo (Units 1A and 1B); DEP-Roxboro (Units 1, 2, 3A,
3B, 4A, 4B). Data from 2017-2021 indicate that existing WFGD systems at
these units at the five Duke facilities routinely achieve 92 to 98
percent SO2 removal efficiencies with some month-to-month
variation in performance.\93\ Because these coal units are subject to
the MATS alternative SO2 emission limit of 0.2 lb/MMBtu and
are equipped with WFGD that routinely achieve a high SO2
control effectiveness, it reasonable to assume that a FFA would likely
result in the conclusion that no further controls are necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ This data is available through EPA's Clean Air Markets
Program at: https://campd.epa.gov/data. A summary of the WFGD
control efficiency data for the years 2017-2022 for DEC-Belews Creek
(Units 1, 2); DEC-Cliffside (Units 5 and 6); DEC-Marshall (Units 1-
4); DEP-Mayo (Units 1A and 1B); and DEP-Roxboro (Units 1, 2, 3A, 3B,
4A, 4B) is compiled in a spreadsheet which is included in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Consideration of the Four CAA Factors: EPA finds that North
Carolina reasonably evaluated and determined, under the four CAA
factors, the emission reduction measures for the selected sources that
are necessary to make reasonable progress but for the concerns with the
legal and practicable enforceability of certain Domtar and PCS permit
conditions identified for incorporation into the SIP for the reasons
discussed below.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See also Section I.B of the TSD for additional details
regarding North Carolina's FFAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. BRPP: Regarding BRPP, EPA finds that DAQ's conclusions that
existing SO2 measures at BRPP's Riley Coal Boiler, Riley
Bark Boiler, and the No. 4 Power Boiler are necessary for reasonable
progress for the second planning period to be reasonable. The State
evaluated available and technically feasible SO2 controls
that were based on, where applicable, estimated values of capital
costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton of emission reductions, and
were consistent with recommendations in EPA's ``Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual'' (Cost Manual).\95\ WFGD with approximately a 90 percent
control efficiency is an existing SO2 control for these
units, and the recently installed control measures are estimated to
reduce the 2028 projected emissions for the facility from approximately
5,875 tons to 485 tons of SO2.\96\ Additionally, EPA finds
that DAQ reasonably concluded that the addition of DSI controls at
$13,477/ton and $14,752/ton for the Riley Coal Boiler and No. 4 power
Boiler, respectively, and the ULSD at over $126,000/ton for all three
units, are not necessary to make reasonable progress. The associated
[[Page 67360]]
existing SO2 emissions limits for these boilers, summarized
in Table 7-48 of the 2022 Plan, are already adopted into the North
Carolina SIP effective November 24, 2020.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ EPA's Cost Manual is available at: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
\96\ Tables 7-5 and 7-26 of the 2022 Plan display 2028 BRPP
SO2 emissions projections as 405 tpy. Table 7-49 of the
2022 Plan identifies the 2028 BRPP SO2 emissions
projections as 485 tpy.
\97\ See 85 FR 74884 (November 24, 2020) available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-24/pdf/2020-25464.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Domtar: Regarding Domtar, EPA finds that DAQ's exclusion of
HFB1 from FFA review is reasonable because it is equipped to only burn
natural gas and biomass with No. 2 fuel oil as a backup unit and is
projected to emit 12 tpy of SO2 in 2028, which is only one
percent of Domtar's total SO2 emissions. EPA also finds that
DAQ's control analysis and conclusions that the existing SO2
measures at Domtar's HFB2 are necessary for reasonable progress for the
second planning period are reasonable, except for EPA's concerns with
the legal and practicable enforceability of certain permit conditions
identified for incorporation into the SIP from Domtar's title V permit.
The State evaluated available and technically feasible SO2
control measures for HFB2 that were based on, where applicable,
estimated values of capital costs, annualized costs, and cost per ton
of emission reductions prepared according to EPA's Cost Manual. The
cost effectiveness of DSI is $22,092/ton and the cost effectiveness of
the WFGD is $3,660/ton using a conservative 3.25 percent interest
rate.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PRIME for historical
interest rates. As of July 22, 2024, the current bank prime interest
rate is 8.5 percent. (See: https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina's LTS contains deficiencies that preclude full
approval and, based on the State's commitment to address these
concerns, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the LTS portion of
the Haze Plan. As discussed in Section III of this document, each
state's regional haze SIP must include a LTS that contains enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress. See CAA section 169A(b)(2),
40 CFR 51.308(f)(2). Furthermore, CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to ``include enforceable conditions and other control measures,
means or techniques . . . as may be necessary or appropriate'' to meet
the requirements of the Act. As EPA has repeatedly stated, to be
enforceable, a CAA requirement must be legally and practically
enforceable, and there is a considerable body of applicable EPA rules,
EPA guidance, and EPA-approved state practices on the topic of
practicably enforceable emission limits.\99\ Typically, a primary
mechanism for ensuring that a SIP provision is legally and practicably
enforceable is for a state to impose sufficient monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) requirements on affected sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See, e.g., 57 FR 13497, 13567 (April 16, 1992) (explaining
principles, including enforceability, to which SIPs and implementing
instruments must adhere to help assure that planned emission
reductions will be achieved); 80 FR 33840, 33843, 33865, 33890,
33891, 33903 (June 12, 2015) (discussing the requirement that SIP
emission limits must be practicably enforceable and stating that
``[t]he term practically enforceable means, in the context of a SIP
emission limitation, that the limitation is enforceable as a
practical matter (e.g., contains appropriate averaging times,
compliance verification procedures and recordkeeping
requirements).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's rules regarding the preparation, adoption, and submittal of
SIPs at 40 CFR part 51 also contain requirements concerning the
enforceability of SIP emission limits. For example, SIPs must include
enforceable test methods for each emission limit included in the plan.
See 40 CFR 51.212. SIPs must also provide legally enforceable methods
requiring owners or operators of stationary sources to maintain records
of and periodically report to the State information regarding the
nature and number of emissions from a stationary source and other
information as it may be necessary for a state to determine if the
source is in compliance with the control strategy. See 40 CFR 51.211.
Furthermore, the SIP completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix
V state that complete SIPs contain ``evidence that the plan contains
emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/
reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels''
and ``compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will
be determined in practice.'' See 40 CFR 51.103; 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, sections 2.2(g), (h).
North Carolina's SIP revision relies on certain existing emission
limits in the title V permit for Domtar to achieve reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal. These emission limits must be
legally and practically enforceable, as required under sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 169A(b)(2) of the Act, and the SIP must satisfy EPA's
rules regarding the enforceability of SIP emission limits. Section
7.8.3.1 of the Haze Plan identifies SO2 emission limits from
Conditions 2.1 A.4 and 2.1 A.7 of Domtar title V Air Quality Permit No.
04291T51 for incorporation into the SIP as well as several other
provisions in these Conditions, including A.4.c.\100\ The conditions
listed in italics under Section 7.8.3.1 are identified for
incorporation into the SIP with the exception of any text marked in
strikeout.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ The State requested in the Haze Plan for EPA to
incorporate specific permit conditions from Domtar title V Air
Quality Permit No. 04291T50. However, this permit was superseded
after EPA received the SIP revision. In an email dated March 28,
2024, DAQ asks EPA to instead incorporate the same terms from the
current Domtar title V permit (DAQ Air Quality Permit No. 04291T51)
and confirms that the text of the permit conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP in Section 7.8.3.1 of the Haze Plan from
Permit No. 04291T50 has not changed. The March 28, 2024, email and
the current Domtar permit are included in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition 2.1 A.4.a contains an SO2 emission limit of
2.3 lbs/MMBtu heat input when firing wood or natural gas. This limit
also applies when burning waste gases with wood and/or natural gas.
However, the SIP revision does not include a methodology to evaluate
compliance with the 2.3 lbs/MMBtu emission limit. EPA considers the
lack of a compliance methodology as a deficiency because it undermines
the enforceability of the emission limit. In its Commitment Letter,
North Carolina has committed to address this concern by revising
Condition 2.1 A.4 of Permit No. 04291T51 to include a condition
containing a procedure to monitor and evaluate compliance with the
SO2 emission limit of 2.3 lbs/MMBtu in Condition 2.1 A.4.a
and submitting a SIP revision, no later than one year from the
effective date of a final conditional approval action (should EPA
finalize the proposed partial conditional approval), requesting
incorporation of the condition into the SIP.
Condition 2.1 A.4.c states that monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting are not required for the combustion of wood residue and
natural gas. However, as discussed above, these SIP-approved emission
limits must have adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and periodic
reporting requirements in order to be legally and practicably
enforceable, and the SIP must satisfy EPA's rules regarding the
enforceability of SIP emission limits which require monitoring,
recordkeeping, and periodic reporting. To address this concern, North
Carolina submitted a letter dated July 30, 2024, withdrawing from the
Haze Plan the State's request for EPA to incorporate Condition 2.1
A.4.c into the SIP,\101\ and in its Commitment Letter, North Carolina
committed to submit a
[[Page 67361]]
SIP revision, no later than one year from the effective date of a final
conditional approval action (should EPA finalize the proposed partial
conditional approval), requesting incorporation of Conditions 4 I.B.,
P, and X into the SIP.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ In a July 30, 2024, letter, DAQ withdrew the State's
request for EPA to incorporate Condition 2.1 A.4.c from Domtar Paper
Company's title V air permit for its Plymouth facility into the
North Carolina SIP. This request appeared in Section 7.8.3.l of the
Haze Plan narrative on pages 284-285. The July 30, 2024, letter of
withdrawal is included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
\102\ North Carolina's SIP contains a recordkeeping provision at
15 NCAC 02D .0605 that requires the owner or operator of a source
subject to the requirements of 15 NCAC 02D or 02Q, such as Domtar,
to maintain for two years ``(1) records detailing malfunctions
pursuant to 15A NCAC 02D .0535; (2) records of testing conducted
pursuant to rules in Subchapter 02D; (3) records of monitoring
conducted pursuant to Subchapters 02D or 02Q of this Chapter; (4)
records detailing activities relating to compliance schedules in
this Subchapter [02D]; and (5) for unpermitted sources, records
needed to determine compliance with rules in Subchapters 02D or 02Q
of this Chapter.'' See 15 NCAC 02D .0605(a), (e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition 2.1 A.7.a contains an SO2 emission limit of
0.80 lb/MMBtu heat input when firing oil and wood/lignin. Condition 2.1
A.7 identifies fuel sampling and analysis as the method to evaluate
compliance with the 0.80 lb/MMBtu emission limit; however, the
Condition does not identify a method to convert fuel sampling and
analysis data into SO2 emissions values comparable with the
emission limit. This emission limit is not practicably enforceable for
SIP purposes without inclusion of a corresponding conversion
methodology. In its Commitment Letter, North Carolina has committed to
address this concern by revising Condition 2.1 A.6 and/or Condition 2.1
A.7 of Permit No. 04291T51 to include a condition containing a
procedure to monitor and evaluate compliance with the SO2
emission limit of 0.80 lb/MMBtu in Condition 2.1 A.7.a and submitting a
SIP revision, no later than one year from the effective date of a final
conditional approval action (should EPA finalize the proposed partial
conditional approval), requesting incorporation of the monitoring
condition into the SIP.
Given the concerns identified above, and North Carolina's
Commitment Letter containing the aforementioned commitments to address
these identified concerns related to Domtar, EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the sections of the Haze Plan addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), (f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4).
iii. PCS: Regarding PCS, EPA finds that DAQ's control analysis and
conclusions that the existing SO2 measures at PCS' SAPs 5,
6, and 7 are necessary for reasonable progress for the second planning
period are reasonable, except for EPA's concerns with the legal and
practicable enforceability of certain permit conditions identified for
incorporation into the SIP from PCS' title V permit. The State
adequately demonstrated that there are no technically feasible
SO2 control measures for sulfuric acid plants beyond dual
absorption process with cesium catalyst, the current SO2
control measure at SAPs 5, 6, and 7.
North Carolina's SIP revision relies on certain existing emission
limits in the title V permit for PCS to achieve reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal. However, EPA finds that these
emission limits are not legally and practicably enforceable. As
discussed above, these emission limits must be legally and practically
enforceable, as required under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 169A(b)(2) of
the Act, and the SIP must satisfy EPA's rules regarding the
enforceability of SIP emission limits. Section 7.8.3.2 of the Haze Plan
identifies SO2 emission limits from Condition 2.4 A.1 of PCS
title V Air Quality Permit No. 04176T72 for incorporation into the SIP
as well as several other provisions in Condition 2.4 A.1, including
Conditions A.1.m and A.1.o.\103\ \104\ The conditions listed in italics
under Section 7.8.3.2 are identified for incorporation into the SIP
with the exception of any text marked in strikeout. A summary of EPA's
finding and North Carolina's commitment to address the lack of
enforceability of these emission limits is found below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Condition 2.4 A.1 of Air Quality Permit No. 04176T72
includes the SO2 emissions limits for Sulfuric Acid
Plants Nos. 5, 6, and 7 required under a February 26, 2015, consent
decree between EPA and PCS that terminated on April 3, 2023. The
consent decree and termination order are in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking. Although the consent decree is terminated, the
emission limits ``shall never be relaxed.'' See Condition 2.4 A.1.f.
\104\ The statement in the first bullet on p. 288 of the 2022
Plan that reads ``Section 2.5 A.1.b through d, f'' is correct. The
paragraph letters ``a'', ``b'', and ``c'' in the italicized text are
incorrect and should read ``b'', ``c'', and ``d'', respectively. The
State requested in the Haze Plan for EPA to incorporate specific
permit conditions from PCS title V Air Quality Permit No. 04176T66
into the SIP. However, this permit was superseded after EPA received
the SIP revision. In an email dated July 30, 2024, DAQ asks EPA to
incorporate the same terms from the current PCS title V permit (DAQ
Air Quality Permit No. 04176T72). The email confirms that the text
of the permit conditions identified for incorporation into the SIP
in Section 7.8.3.2 of the Haze Plan from Permit No. 04176T66 has not
changed with the exception of the renumbering of Section 2.5 to
Section 2.4 and the correction of a typographical error to a cross-
reference in condition 2.5 A.1.p (currently 2.4 A.1.p) in the PCS
permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitoring provision in Condition 2.4 A.1.m requires the
permittee to monitor SO2 emissions in accordance with the
CEMS Plan (Attachment 2 to the permit). However, the 2022 Plan excludes
Attachment 2 and the reference to Attachment 2 from the request to
incorporate Condition 2.4 A.1.m into the SIP. Similarly, the first
sentence of the monitoring provision in Condition 2.4 A.1.o requires
the permittee to use analyzer data to determine 3-hour rolling averages
and 365-day rolling averages per Attachment 2, and the second sentence
requires the permittee to round calculations associated with these
averages using the procedures specified in Attachment 2. However, the
2022 Plan excludes the second sentence and the reference to Attachment
2 in the first sentence from the request to incorporate Condition 2.4
A.1.o into the SIP. EPA considers this exclusion of monitoring
requirements from Conditions 2.4 A.1.m and 2.4 A.1.o to be a deficiency
because the lack of monitoring requirements undermines the
enforceability of the SO2 emission limits identified for
incorporation into the SIP. In its Commitment Letter, North Carolina
has committed to address these concerns by submitting, no later than
one year from the effective date of a final conditional approval action
(should EPA finalize the proposed partial conditional approval), a SIP
revision requesting incorporation of Conditions 2.4 A.1.m (with the
exception of Condition 2.4 A.1.m.v) and 2.4 A.1.o in its entirety and
Attachment 2 of Permit No. 04176T72 into the SIP.
The SIP revision does not identify any reporting requirements from
title V permit No. 04176T72 for incorporation into the SIP. As
discussed above, these emission limits must have adequate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and periodic reporting requirements in order to be
legally and practicably enforceable. In its Commitment Letter, North
Carolina has committed to address this concern by submitting, no later
than one year from the effective date of a final conditional approval
action (should EPA finalize the proposed partial conditional approval),
a SIP revision requesting incorporation of Conditions 4 I.B., P, and X
into the SIP.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ As discussed in Section IV.C.3.b.ii above, North
Carolina's SIP contains a recordkeeping provision at 15 NCAC 02D
.0605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the concerns identified above and North Carolina's Commitment
Letter containing the aforementioned commitments to address these
identified concerns related to PCS, EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the sections of the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2), (f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4).
c. Documentation of Technical Basis: With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii), EPA finds that North Carolina adequately documented
cost, engineering, emissions, modeling, and monitoring information to
determine the measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress.
With regard to
[[Page 67362]]
emissions information, as required by the RHR, the State included the
required years of the most recent triennial emissions inventory (2017)
and the most recent annual emissions data (2019) at the time of the
development of the 2022 Plan (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii)). DAQ also
provided statewide actual emissions inventory data for 2011, 2014,
2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 in its 2022 Plan. Additionally, the State
provided 2028 emissions data used in the source selection process. With
regard to cost and engineering information, the State provided the
underlying cost calculations associated with the cost summaries in
Section 7.8 of the plan for BRPP and Domtar, and the proposed FFAs in
Appendix G provide engineering analyses evaluating potential new
control measures.\106\ With regard to monitoring data, the State
provided IMPROVE data for the modeling base period plus baseline,
current (2014-2018), updated current (2015-2019), and natural
conditions for all VISTAS Class I areas with more detailed data
provided for the North Carolina Class I areas. With regard to modeling
information, the State documented the modeling input and outputs and
assumptions in the Haze Plan and the results of the modeling related to
RPGs and PSAT source impacts at Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ The State documented that there are no additional
technical feasible control technologies for SO2 at PCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Assessment of the Five Additional Factors in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv): EPA finds that North Carolina considered each of the
five additional factors in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv), discussed the
measures the State has in place to address each factor (or discussed
why such measures are not needed), and, where relevant, explained how
each factor informed DAQ's and VISTAS' technical analyses for the
second planning period.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(A), EPA finds that DAQ
adequately addressed the requirement to assess emission reductions due
to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to
address RAVI, through the State's emissions inventory work for the base
year of 2011 as projected out to 2028.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(B), EPA finds that North
Carolina adequately evaluated measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities by describing various State regulations that
address control of erosion, siltation, and pollution from construction
activities and that require subject facilities to control PM from
fugitive dust emission sources generated within plant boundaries.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(C), EPA finds that North
Carolina adequately considered source retirement and replacement
schedules by summarizing existing and planned source retirements
throughout the 2022 Plan, including in Section 7.2.2 (retirements
accounted for in the 2028 inventory/RPGs) and Section 8.3.5
(retirements not accounted for in the 2028 inventory/RPGs).
Additionally, retirement schedules for various Duke Energy power plant
facilities are included in Table 7-43 of the 2022 Plan.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(D), EPA finds that North
Carolina adequately addressed the requirement to consider the State's
basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for
agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke
management programs for the following reasons. The State describes its
Guidelines for Managing Smoke from Forestry Burning Operations to
mitigate PM2.5 emissions and regional haze impacts
associated with prescribed burning and highlights interagency
coordination related to educating North Carolina citizens on open
burning and related topics.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ DAQ notes that elemental carbon is the primary visibility
impairing pollutant related to wildfires, prescribed wildland fires,
and agricultural burning. Elemental carbon is a relatively minor
contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent most impaired
days from the base period (2000-2004) through 2018 at the Class I
areas in VISTAS and Class I areas neighboring VISTAS based on
IMPROVE monitoring data as discussed in Section 2.4 of the 2022
Plan. See Figures 2-17 and 2-18 of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iv)(E), EPA finds that North
Carolina assessed the anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the
second period in development of the 2028 RPGs for the North Carolina
Class I areas. DAQ used the 2011 base year emissions inventory to
project emissions from various source sectors to 2028, the end of the
second planning period. DAQ, through VISTAS, completed CAMx modeling to
estimate visibility impairment in 2028 based on projected 2028
emissions from the 2011 base year inventory and using IMPROVE
monitoring data for 2009-2013.\108\ For North Carolina, estimated
visibility improvements by 2028 in each Class I area are based on:
estimated emissions reductions associated with existing federal and
state measures implemented or expected to be implemented during the
second planning period; emissions reductions associated with facility
closures that occurred after the 2016 point source emissions base year
(i.e., January 1, 2017 through November 18, 2018); and estimates of
emissions changes associated with economic growth and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ In preparing the 2028 emissions for point sources, North
Carolina started with a 2016 base year inventory which include
emission reductions associated with federal and state control
programs and consent decrees included in the LTS for the first
planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Interstate Consultation: With respect to interstate consultation
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii), EPA finds that North Carolina
adequately consulted with those states with Class I areas where North
Carolina emissions may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment and to consult with those states whose sources
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment at North Carolina's Class I areas. No states requested that
North Carolina perform a FFA of any of the State's sources. With
respect to the MANE-VU Ask, North Carolina adequately took action to
resolve disagreements with MANE-VU related to North Carolina's
statewide impacts and satisfactorily documented the State's
disagreements by sending the February 16, 2018, letter to MANE-VU
documenting the State's points of disagreement in addition to
supporting the January 27, 2018, letter from VISTAS to MANE-VU.\109\
With respect to consultation with other states with visibility impacts
to North Carolina's Class I areas, DAQ adequately documented the
responses from consulted states in Appendix F and as summarized in
Section 10.1.1 and identified whether the State agrees with the
conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Appendix F-4 of the 2022 Plan contains the January 27,
2018, and February 16, 2018, letters along with a letter dated
October 16, 2017, in which MANE-VU requested consultation with North
Carolina because North Carolina exceeds the MANE-VU visibility
impact threshold for at least one Class I area in the MANE-VU
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Conclusions: For the reasons discussed above, EPA finds that
North Carolina's LTS satisfies 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) but for the concerns
with the legal and practicable enforceability of certain Domtar and PCS
permit conditions identified for incorporation into the SIP. Given this
finding and North Carolina's commitment to submit a SIP revision
resolving these concerns, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
sections of the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2), (f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4).
[[Page 67363]]
D. RPGs
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements
pertaining to RPGs for each Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(3)(i)
requires a state in which a Class I area is located to establish RPGs--
one each for the clearest days and the most impaired days--reflecting
the visibility conditions that will be achieved at the end of the
planning period as a result of the emission limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in
states' LTSs, as well as the implementation of other CAA requirements.
The LTSs, as reflected by the RPGs, must provide for an improvement in
visibility on the most impaired days relative to the baseline period
and ensure no degradation on the clearest days relative to the baseline
period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) applies in circumstances in which a
Class I area's RPG for the most impaired days represents a slower rate
of visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress calculated
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the
state in which a mandatory Class I area is located establishes an RPG
for the most impaired days that provides for a slower rate of
visibility improvement than the URP, the state must demonstrate that
there are no additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic
sources or groups of sources in the state that would be reasonable to
include in its LTS. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a
state contains sources that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area in another state, and the RPG
for the most impaired days in that Class I area is above the URP, the
upwind state must provide the same demonstration.
2. State Assessment: North Carolina identified 2028 RPGs for each
of its Class I areas in deciviews for the 20 percent clearest days and
the 20 percent most impaired in Tables 8-1 and 8-2, respectively, of
the 2022 Plan, which are all well below the 2028 URP value for each
Class I area by approximately 13 to 23 deciviews (see Table 1) based on
VISTAS' modeling. Table 4 summarizes the 2028 RPGs and 2028 URP for
North Carolina's Class I areas.
Table 4--North Carolina's Class I Area 2028 RPGs and URP in Deciviews (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2028 RPG for 20% 2028 RPG for 20% 2028 Uniform rate
Class I area clearest days most impaired days of progress (URP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountains............................... 8.96 15.03 21.49
Joyce Kilmer........................................ 8.96 15.03 21.49
Linville Gorge...................................... 8.21 14.25 20.71
Shining Rock........................................ 4.54 13.31 20.98
Swanquarter......................................... 10.77 15.27 18.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figures 3-1 through 3-4 of the 2022 Plan show the URP for the 20
percent most impaired days for Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer,
Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter.
3. EPA Evaluation: As discussed previously in this document, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the sections of the Haze Plan
addressing the regional haze requirements contained in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2) due to concerns with the legal and practicable
enforceability of certain permit conditions for Domtar and PCS
identified for incorporation into the SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i)
specifies that RPGs must reflect ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures required under paragraph
(f)(2) of this section.'' Because the RPGs must reflect enforceable
limits, compliance schedules, and other measures in the LTS and because
the enforceability issues discussed in Sections IV.C.3.b.ii and
IV.C.3.b.iii render certain emission limits in the LTS for Domtar and
PCS unenforceable, EPA finds that North Carolina has satisfied the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) related to RPGs but for
these practicable enforceability concerns and proposes to conditionally
approve the sections of the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3). North Carolina established 2028 RPGs expressed in
deciviews that reflect the visibility conditions that are projected to
be achieved by the end of the second planning period as a result of
implementation of the LTS and other CAA requirements; North Carolina's
RPGs also provide for an improvement in visibility for the 20 percent
most impaired days since the baseline period (2000-2004) and
demonstrate that there is no degradation in visibility for the 20
percent clearest days since the baseline period; and any additional
unanticipated emissions reductions provide further assurances that the
State's Class I areas will achieve their 2028 RPGs. However, because
the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve North Carolina's LTS
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) through this proposed rulemaking, EPA is also
proposing to conditionally approve the RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3).
Therefore, if North Carolina submits the required corrective SIP
revision by the specified deadline in its commitment letter and EPA
approves the submission, the identified practicable enforceability
concerns will be cured and the conditional approval of the elements of
the Haze Plan related to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) will
be converted to a full approval.
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each
comprehensive revision of a state's regional haze SIP must contain or
provide for certain elements, including monitoring strategies,
emissions inventories, and any reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures needed to assess and report on visibility. A main requirement
of this subsection is for states with Class I areas to submit
monitoring strategies for measuring, characterizing, and reporting on
visibility impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met
through participation in the IMPROVE network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I
areas within the state are being achieved. Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii)
requires SIPs to provide for procedures by which monitoring data and
other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at
mandatory Class I areas both within and outside the state. Section
51.308(f)(6)(iii) applies only to states
[[Page 67364]]
that do not have a mandatory Class I areas. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv)
requires the SIP to provide for the reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each Class I
area in the state. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires SIPs to provide for
a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including
emissions for the most recent year for which data are available and
estimates of future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment
to update the inventory periodically. Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) also
requires states to include estimates of future projected emissions and
include a commitment to update the inventory periodically. Under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4), if EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has advised
a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess RAVI, the state
must include in its SIP revision for the second planning period an
appropriate strategy for evaluating such impairment.
2. State Assessment: With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), North
Carolina states that the existing IMPROVE monitors for the State's
Class I areas are adequate. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii),
data from these IMPROVE monitors will be used for future haze plans and
progress reports. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to North
Carolina because it has Class I areas. With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(iv), NPS manages and oversees the IMPROVE monitoring
network and reviews, verifies, and validates IMPROVE data before its
submission to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). With respect to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(v), DAQ provided a statewide baseline emissions inventory
of visibility impairing pollutants for the year 2011 in Table 4-2 of
the 2022 Plan; provided 2011, 2014, and 2016-2019 \110\ anthropogenic
emissions data for SO2, NOX, PM2.5,
PM10, and VOC in Tables 13-9, 13-10, 13-11, 13-12, 13-13,
respectively; provided EPA and VISTAS 2028 future emissions projections
for SO2 and NOX in Table 4-3, and for specific
point sources, 2028 VISTAS emission projections for SO2 and
NOX in Tables 7-20 through 7-24; and committed to update the
inventory periodically. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi), North
Carolina affirms there are no elements, including reporting,
recordkeeping, or other measures, necessary to address and report on
visibility for North Carolina's Class I areas or Class I areas outside
the State that are affected by sources in North Carolina. With respect
to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), the State did not include a strategy for
evaluating RAVI for any Class I areas because no Federal agency
requested additional monitoring to assess RAVI. Section II of the TSD
provides a more detailed summary of the State's assessment of its
monitoring strategy for regional haze and other plan requirements
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ As discussed above, at the time of development of the 2022
Plan, the 2017 NEI was the most recent triennial emissions inventory
and 2019 emissions data were the most recent annual emissions data
available at the time of the development of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA finds that North Carolina has satisfied the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) and (f)(6) related to
RAVI, visibility monitoring, and emissions inventories. With respect to
40 CFR 51.308(f)(4), EPA proposes to find that this requirement does
not apply to North Carolina at this time because neither EPA nor the
FLMs requested additional monitoring to assess RAVI.
EPA finds that North Carolina satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), which
is generally met by the State's continued participation in the IMPROVE
monitoring network and the VISTAS RPO, for the following reasons. With
respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(i), North Carolina stated that the
existing IMPROVE monitors relied upon for the State's five Class I
areas are adequate, and thus, additional monitoring sites or equipment
are not needed to assess whether RPGs for all Class I areas within the
State are being achieved. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii),
North Carolina has procedures by which monitoring data and other
information are used to determine the contribution of emissions from
within the State to regional haze at Class I areas both within and
outside the State through North Carolina's continued participation in
VISTAS' regional haze work. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iii),
this provision is applicable for states with no Class I areas and does
not apply to North Carolina. Regarding the reporting of visibility
monitoring data to EPA at least annually for each Class I area in the
State pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(iv), EPA finds that North
Carolina's participation in the IMPROVE Steering Committee and the
IMPROVE monitoring network addresses this requirement. With respect to
40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(v), EPA finds that North Carolina's continued
participation in VISTAS' efforts for projecting future emissions and
continued compliance with the requirements of the AERR to periodically
update emissions inventories satisfies the requirement to provide for
an emissions inventory for the most recent year for which data are
available. In addition, EPA finds that North Carolina adequately
documented that no further elements are necessary at this time for the
State to assess and report on visibility pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(6)(vi). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the portions
of the North Carolina SIP submission related to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6).
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Toward the
RPGs
1. RHR Requirement: Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic
comprehensive revisions of states' regional haze plans address the
progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The
purpose of these requirements is to evaluate progress toward the
applicable RPGs for each Class I area within the state and each Class I
area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within
that state. Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and
require a description of the status of implementation of all measures
included in a state's first planning period regional haze plan and a
summary of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of
those measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class
I areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions
relative to the period addressed in the first planning period progress
report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and requires an
analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants contributing to
visibility impairment from all sources and sectors since the period
addressed by the first planning period progress report. This provision
further specifies the year or years through which the analysis must
extend depending on the type of source and the platform through which
its emission information is reported. Finally, 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5),
which also applies to all states, requires an assessment of any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
state have occurred since the period addressed by the first planning
period progress report, including whether such changes were anticipated
and whether they have limited or impeded expected progress toward
reducing emissions and improving visibility.
[[Page 67365]]
2. State Assessment: With respect to the progress report elements
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5), DAQ addressed these elements in
Section 13 of the 2022 Plan for the period 2011 to 2018, the end of the
first period.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (g)(2), DAQ describes the status
of the implementation of the measures of the LTS from the first
planning period in Section 13.2 of the 2022 Plan and provides a summary
of the emission reductions achieved by implementing those measures in
Section 13.3 of the 2022 Plan. With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1),
Table 13-1 of the 2022 Plan identifies key emissions control measures
and other emission reduction actions included in the LTS of North
Carolina's first regional haze plan submitted on December 17, 2007
(``2007 Haze Plan''). Table 13-1 also identifies key measures that
contributed to emission reductions during the first planning period but
were not a part of the LTS for the first period (e.g., 2010
SO2 NAAQS).
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2), North Carolina continued to
focus on SO2 emissions reductions because the State
determined that ammonium sulfate was the most important contributor to
visibility impairment and fine particle mass on the 20 percent best and
20 percent worst days in the first planning period.\111\ In Section
13.3 of the 2022 Plan, DAQ summarized EGU and certain non-EGU
SO2 emissions reductions over the 2013-2018 period. The Duke
Energy Progress and Duke Progress Carolinas EGU facilities collectively
emitted a total of 73,456 tons of SO2 emissions in 2011
which decreased to 15,130 tons in 2018, a reduction of approximately 79
percent and the EGU sector represents over 50 percent of statewide
SO2 emissions from stationary sources in North Carolina.
Regarding EGU NOX emissions reductions, Duke Energy Progress
and Duke Progress Carolinas EGU facilities together emitted a total of
39,285 tons of NOX emissions in 2011 which decreased to
27,305 tons in 2018, a reduction of 30 percent. Additionally, DAQ
focused on five non-EGU facilities identified in the 2007 Haze Plan for
a FFA and for which no new measures were found reasonable in that plan:
BRPP; Domtar; International Paper--New Bern Mill; PCS; and Coastal
Carolina Clean Power--Kenansville. Except for Domtar, whose
SO2 emissions increased by 161 tpy from 2011 to 2018,
SO2 emissions decreased due to new control measures or
because the facility closed (i.e., Coastal Carolina Clean Power--
Kenansville closed in 2017). DAQ states that there has been a 58
percent reduction in SO2 emissions associated with these
five facilities. The data summarized below regarding 40 CFR
51.308(g)(4) also reflects emissions reductions for the 2013-2018
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ For the first planning period, visibility conditions were
determined for the average of the 20 percent most impaired
visibility days (referred to as the ``worst'' days) and the 20
percent least impaired visibility days (referred to as the ``best''
days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), DAQ calculated the following for the
State's five Class I areas in Tables 13-6, 13-7, and 13-8: the current
visibility conditions (2014-2018); the difference between current
visibility conditions compared to the baseline; and the change in
visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days over the
past five years. DAQ concluded that IMPROVE monitoring data for 2014-
2018 show that all North Carolina Class I areas are well below the 2018
RPG for the 20 percent worst days and there is no degradation on the 20
percent best/clearest days which is illustrated in Figures 13-1 through
13-8 of the 2022 Plan.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ In Figures 13-1 through 13-8 of the 2022 Plan, the ``Model
Projection'' represents the RPGs and ``Observation'' represents
IMPROVE data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), in Section 13.5, DAQ provided
emissions trends from 2011 through 2019 for SO2,
NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOCs which
reflect the emissions reductions from the measures in the first
planning period LTS. In summary, from 2011 to 2019, statewide emissions
of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, PM10,
and VOCs have reduced by 71, 40, 20, 4, and 13 percent, respectively.
Regarding SO2, statewide SO2 emissions decreased
(in tpy) from 118,721 in 2011 to 34,712 in 2019. Regarding
NOX, statewide NOX emissions decreased (in tpy)
from 369,496 in 2011 to 223,264 in 2019.
Regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), in Section 13.6, DAQ reviewed
anthropogenic SO2 and NOX emissions trends based
on emissions included in the 2011, 2014, and 2017 NEIs for the VISTAS
states and all of the RPOs. The data show a decline in SO2
and NOX emissions from 2011 through 2017 in all regions of
the country as shown in Table 13-14 and Figures 13-14 and 13-15 of the
2022 Plan. DAQ concluded that there does not appear to be any
anthropogenic emissions within North Carolina that would have limited
or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions or improving
visibility.
Section III of the TSD provides a more detailed summary of the
State's assessment of how North Carolina addressed requirements for
periodic reports describing progress toward the RPGs for the State's
Class I areas pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA finds that North Carolina has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(5) because the 2022 Plan
adequately describes the status of the measures included in the LTS
from the first planning period and the emission reductions achieved
from those measures; the visibility conditions and changes at the North
Carolina Class I areas; an analysis tracking the changes in emissions
since the first planning period progress report using available
emissions data from 2011-2019, including annual 2018 and 2019 emissions
data and 2017 NEI data which is the most recent triennial emissions
inventory submission from North Carolina prior to submission of the
2022 Plan in accordance with the RHR; and assessed whether any
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the
State have occurred since 2010 (the end of the period addressed by
North Carolina's first planning period progress report), including
whether these changes in anthropogenic emissions were anticipated in
that most recent plan and whether they have limited or impeded progress
in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility. Thus, EPA is
proposing to approve the progress report elements pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(f)(5).
G. Requirements for State and FLM Coordination
1. RHR Requirement: Section 169A(d) of the CAA requires states to
consult with FLMs before holding the public hearing on a proposed
regional haze SIP and to include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and
recommendations in the notice to the public. In addition, the FLM
consultation provision of 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) requires a state to
provide the FLMs with an opportunity for consultation that is early
enough in the state's policy analyses of its emission reduction
obligation so that information and recommendations provided by the FLMs
can meaningfully inform the state's decisions on its LTS. If the
consultation has taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing
or public comment period, the opportunity for consultation will be
deemed early enough. Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must
be provided at least 60 days before a public hearing or public comment
period at the state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two
substantive topics on which the FLMs must be provided an opportunity to
discuss with states: assessment of
[[Page 67366]]
visibility impairment in any Class I area and recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address visibility
impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in developing their
implementation plans, to include a description of how they addressed
FLMs' comments. Section 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) requires that the regional
haze SIP revision provide procedures for continuing consultation
between the state and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection
program.
2. State Assessment: As required by CAA section 169A(d), North
Carolina consulted with the FLMs prior to opening the State public
comment period on its proposed haze plan and included a summary of the
conclusions and recommendations of the FLMs in the proposed plan dated
August 30, 2021, in Section 10.4 and Appendix H of the 2022 Plan. North
Carolina consulted with the FLMs on April 5, 2021, which was 147 days
before the opening of the public comment period on August 30, 2021.
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), DAQ offered to the three FLM
agencies the opportunity to consult on the April 5, 2021, draft North
Carolina Haze Plan. DAQ shared with the FLMs the August 30, 2021,
proposed North Carolina Haze Plan issued for state public notice and
comment with a public hearing held October 6, 2021, with the close of
the comment period on October 15, 2021. A summary of this consultation
process is discussed and documented in Section 10.4 of the 2022 Plan
(responses to FLM comments) with supporting information in Appendix H
(FLM comments received) and Appendix F. Appendix F-3 contains VISTAS
stakeholder materials which include data and analyses for North
Carolina that were presented to the FLMs (and EPA). In addition,
through VISTAS, North Carolina participated in a series of conference
calls where the FLMs and EPA were given the opportunity review and
provide feedback regarding technical analyses developed by VISTAS. DAQ
also participated in calls hosted by VISTAS with other RPOs, FLMs, and
EPA to discuss VISTAS' approaches to source selection and other related
topics. See Appendix F of the 2022 Plan.
To address 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), North Carolina provided responses
to comments received from NPS and USFS in Section 10.4 and Appendix I
(Section 3.2) of the 2022 Plan.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ FWS did not provide written comments to DAQ on North
Carolina's draft and proposed haze plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), North Carolina updated its
existing procedures for continuing consultation with the FLMs,
including annual discussions with a review of the most recent IMPROVE
monitoring data. Also, DAQ stated that its New Source Review (NSR)
regulations for both nonattainment and attainment areas will address
emissions from new sources that may be located near a Class I area or
increased emissions from major modifications to existing sources. DAQ
noted that consultation with the FLMs is also required for sources that
are subject to its NSR regulations.
3. EPA Evaluation: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
Haze Plan with respect to the FLM consultation requirements under 40
CFR 51.308(i)(2)-(4) because EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
the LTS under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) and the RPGs under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3). Although North Carolina consulted with the FLMs prior to
the public hearing on the 2022 Plan and included a summary of the
conclusions and recommendations of the FLMs in the proposed plan issued
for public review, provided the FLMs the requisite opportunity to
review and provide feedback on the State's initial draft plan pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), included the FLM comments in the proposed Haze
Plan pursuant to CAA 169(A)(d), included responses to the FLM comments
in the Haze Plan pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3), and included ongoing
FLM consultation procedures in the Haze Plan pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), North Carolina's consultation was based on a SIP revision
that did not meet the required statutory and regulatory requirements of
the CAA and the RHR, respectively. If EPA finalizes the partial
conditional approval of the Plan, as proposed in this document, the
State will be required to again satisfy the FLM consultation
requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(i) in the process of submitting to EPA
the corrective SIP revision identified in its Commitment Letter.
H. Environmental Justice (EJ) Considerations
As explained in EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice
and the 2021 Clarifications Memo, CAA section 169A and the RHR provide
states with the discretion to consider EJ in developing rules and
measures related to regional haze.\114\ In this instance, DAQ exercised
this discretion, as is described below in summary. In reviewing DAQ's
analysis, EPA defers to North Carolina's reasonable exercise of its
discretion in considering EJ in this way. The information associated
with DAQ's analysis is included in this document for informational
purposes only; it does not form any part of the basis of EPA's proposed
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice (May
2022) is available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf; 2021
Clarifications Memo at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAQ describes North Carolina's EJ Program for regional haze in
Section 10.6 of the 2022 Plan which includes outreach plans to provide
an opportunity for meaningful involvement of all people regardless of
race, color, national origin, or income during the comment period of
this regional haze plan for North Carolina. DAQ ran EJScreen,\115\ an
EJ mapping and screening tool that provided a nationally consistent
dataset and approach for combining various environmental and
demographic indicators, around the North Carolina Class I areas except
for Great Smoky Mountains because the area is too large to perform the
EJScreen analysis. Based on the EJScreen results, which are included in
Appendix F-5 of the Haze Plan, DAQ implemented its outreach plan,
including conducting specific outreach during the comment period on the
August 30, 2021, proposed haze plan to communities within potentially
underserved block groups that overlap or are within one mile of the
North Carolina Class I areas. DAQ also provided project information and
updates to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation. Section IV of the
TSD provides a more detailed summary of how North Carolina opted to
consider EJ in development of the 2022 Plan. While EPA commends North
Carolina's consideration of EJ when developing its SIP revision, the EJ
analyses submitted by DAQ were considered but were not the basis for
EPA's proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ EPA's EJScreen tool is available at: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed above in this
preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into North
Carolina's SIP the following conditions from DAQ Air Quality Permit No.
04291T51 issued to Domtar with an effective date of December 1, 2023:
Conditions 2.1 A.4.a (except for the references to HFB1 and the list of
systems and sources in A.4.a.i through
[[Page 67367]]
A.4.a.v); \116\ A.6.e (except for the references to HFB1 and the second
sentence); \117\ A.6.k (except for the references to HFB1); \118\
A.6.l; A.6.m (except the word ``above''); \119\ A.7.a (except for the
text unrelated to the SO2 limit for HFB2); \120\ A.7.d
(except for the references to particulate matter and the word
``above''); \121\ A.7.f (except for the phrase ``amounts of each fuel
fired in the No. 1 Hog Fuel Boiler each month and the''); \122\ and
A.7.g (except the word ``above'').\123\ EPA is also proposing the
incorporation by reference into North Carolina's SIP the following
conditions from DAQ Air Quality Permit No. 04176T72 issued by DAQ to
PCS with an effective date of May 7, 2024: Conditions 2.4 A.1.b (except
for the phrase ``By no later than the compliance deadline specified in
Section 2.4 A.1.g, below,''); \124\ A.1.c (except for the phrase ``By
no later than the compliance deadline specified in Section 2.4 A.1.g,
below,''); \125\ A.1.d (except for the phrase ``By no later than the
compliance deadline specified in Section 2.4 A.1.g, below,'' and the
last four sentences of A.1.d.ii); \126\ A.1.f; A.1.h; A.1.i; A.1.k
(except for the phrase ``After the compliance dates listed in Section
2.1.1 A.6.g, above,''); \127\ A.1.l (except for the phrase ``Beginning
with the initial RATA as required by Section 2.1.1 A.6.k, above, and
thereafter''); \128\ A.1.m (except for the phrase ``By no later than
the compliance deadlines listed in Section 2.4 A.1.g, above,'' the
phrase ``(see Attachment 2 of this permit),'' and Condition A.1.m.v);
\129\ A.1.n; A.1.o (except for the phrase ``per Attachment 2 of this
permit,'' and the second sentence); \130\ A.1.p; and A.1.q. EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please
contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact
section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``Emissions
of sulfur dioxide when firing wood or natural gas in the No. 2 Hog
Fuel Boiler (ID No. ES-65-25-0310) shall not exceed 2.3 pounds per
million Btu heat input. Sulfur dioxide formed by the combustion of
sulfur in fuels, wastes, ores, and other substances shall be
included when determining compliance with this standard, and shall
include the sulfur dioxide formed by the combustion of sulfur-
containing gases.'' See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\117\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
Permittee shall demonstrate compliance with the sulfur dioxide
emission limit for the No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler (ID No. ES-65-25-0310)
by fuel sampling and analysis. [40 CFR 60.45(b)(2)]'' See Section
7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\118\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``Pursuant
to 40 CFR 60.7(b), the Permittee shall maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
the operation of the No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler (ID No. ES 65-25-0310)
and any malfunctions of the air pollution control equipment, or any
periods during which a continuous monitoring system or monitoring
device is inoperative [40 CFR 60.7(b)]. The Permittee shall be
deemed in noncompliance with 15A NCAC 02D .0524 if the startup,
shutdown, or malfunction records and records of air pollution
control equipment malfunctions are not maintained as specified.''
See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\119\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
Permittee shall record and maintain records of the amount and type
of each fuel burned during each day and keep fuel receipts from the
supplier that certify potential sulfur dioxide content of fuel oil
fired in the hog fuel boilers as specified in Section 2.1 A.6.e. The
Permittee shall be deemed in noncompliance with 15A NCAC 02D .0524
if the fuel records are not maintained as specified.'' See Section
7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\120\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
following Best Available Control Technology (BACT) shall not be
exceeded:'' and include the row entry for HFB2 containing the 0.80
lb/MMBtu emission limit. See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\121\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
Permittee shall follow the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
for sulfur dioxide in Section 2.1 A.6.e and A.6.i through A.6.m. The
Permittee shall be deemed in noncompliance with 15A NCAC 02D .0530
if the monitoring required for sulfur dioxide emissions from the No.
2 Hog Fuel Boiler is not maintained as required.'' See Section
7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\122\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
Permittee shall record and maintain records of the amounts of each
fuel fired in the No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler each month and make these
records available to an authorized representative of DAQ upon
request. The Permittee shall be deemed in noncompliance with 15A
NCAC 02D .0530 if the amounts of fuels fired each month are not
recorded.'' See Section 7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\123\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
Permittee shall submit a semiannual summary report, acceptable to
the Regional Air Quality Supervisor, of monitoring and recordkeeping
activities given in Section 2.1 A.7.d through A.7.f, postmarked on
or before January 30 of each calendar year for the preceding six-
month periods between July and December, and July 30 of each
calendar year for the preceding six-month period between January and
June. The report shall identify all periods of noncompliance from
the requirements of this permit or a statement that no periods of
noncompliance occurred during the reporting period.'' See Section
7.8.3.1 of the 2022 Plan.
\124\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
sulfur dioxide emissions from Sulfuric Acid Plant No. 5 (ID No. S-5)
shall not exceed the following emissions limitations: i. Short-Term
Limit: 3.2 pounds per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid production on
a 3-hour rolling average basis. ii. Long-Term Limit: 2.5 pounds per
ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid production on a 365-day rolling
average basis.'' See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
\125\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
sulfur dioxide emissions from Sulfuric Acid Plant No. 6 (ID No. S-6)
shall not exceed the following emissions limitations: i. Short-Term
Limit: 3.3 pounds per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid production on
a 3-hour rolling average basis. ii. Long-Term Limit: 2.5 pounds per
ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid production on a 365-day rolling
average basis.'' See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
\126\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
sulfur dioxide emissions from Sulfuric Acid Plant No. 7 (ID No. S-7)
shall not exceed the following emissions limitations: i. Short-Term
Limit: 3.0 pounds per ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid production on
a 3-hour rolling average basis. ii. Long-Term Limit: 1.75 pounds per
ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid production on a 365-day rolling
average basis.'' See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
\127\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
Permittee shall conduct a Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) at
least once every four calendar quarters at each of the Sulfuric Acid
Plants No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7 (ID Nos. S-5, S-6, and No. 7) per the
procedures of 40 CFR 60.85 for sulfur dioxide and oxygen
concentrations and pounds sulfur dioxide per ton of 100 percent
sulfuric acid produced as required by 40 CFR part 60 Appendix F,
Procedure 1, 5.1.1.'' See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
\128\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``For every
triennial RATA (i.e., year 1, 4, 7, etc.), the Permittee shall
utilize the reference methods and procedures specified in 40 CFR
60.85(b) to generate the Reference Method values for calculating the
relative accuracy. In intervening years (i.e., year 2, 3, 5, 6,
etc.) the Permittee may use the alternative method specified in 40
CFR 60.85(c) to calculate the Reference Method values.'' See Section
7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
\129\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The
Permittee shall monitor sulfur dioxide emissions from each of the
sulfuric acid plants (ID Nos. S-5, S-6, and S-7), in accordance with
the SO2 CEMS Plan and following procedures: i. The
Permittee shall measure the sulfur dioxide concentration (lb/DSCF or
ppmvd) and oxygen concentration (percent by volume) at the exit
stack at least once every 15 minutes using a sulfur dioxide analyzer
and oxygen analyzer. ii. During routine calibration checks and
adjustments of any analyzer, the precalibration level shall be used
to fill in any analyzer data gaps that occur pending completion of
the calibration checks and adjustments. iii. If any one or more than
one analyzer is/are not operating, a like-kind replacement (i.e. a
redundant analyzer) may be used as a substitute. iv. If any one or
more than one analyzer is/are not operating for a period of 24 hours
or greater and no redundant analyzer is available, data gaps in the
array involving the non-operational analyzer(s) shall be filled is
as follows: (A) Exit stack gas shall be sampled and analyzed for
sulfur dioxide at least once every three hours, while the relevant
sulfuric acid plant is operating. Sampling shall be conducted by
Reich test or other established method (e.g., portable analyzer).
The most recent 3-hour average reading shall be substituted for the
four 15-minute average measurements that would otherwise be utilized
if the analyzer were operating normally. (B) Oxygen in the exit
stack gas shall be sampled and analyzed at least once every three
hours, while the relevant sulfuric acid plant is operating. Sampling
shall be conducted by Orsat test or other method (e.g., portable
analyzer). The most recent 3-hour average reading shall be
substituted for the four 15- minute average measurements that would
otherwise be utilized if the analyzer were operating normally.'' See
Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
\130\ The text incorporated into the SIP would state ``The 15-
minute analyzer data shall be used to determine the 3-hour rolling
averages and 365-day rolling averages to demonstration [sic]
compliance with the short-term and long-term sulfur dioxide
limits.'' See Section 7.8.3.2 of the 2022 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Proposed Action
For the reasons stated herein, EPA is proposing to approve in part
and conditionally approve in part North Carolina's April 4, 2022, SIP
submission as supplemented with a commitment letter on July 30, 2024.
EPA is proposing to approve the sections of the Haze Plan addressing
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), (f)(4) through(6), and (g)(1)
[[Page 67368]]
through(5). EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the sections of
the Haze Plan addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2),
(f)(3), and (i)(2) through(4) due to concerns with the legal and
practicable enforceability of certain permit conditions identified in
the Haze Plan for incorporation into the SIP.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
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.
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 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).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
North Carolina DAQ evaluated EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal even though the CAA and applicable implementing regulations
neither prohibit nor require an evaluation. EPA's evaluation of North
Carolina DAQ's EJ considerations are described above in the section
titled, ``Environmental Justice (EJ) Considerations.'' The analysis was
done for the purpose of providing additional context and information
about this rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the proposed
action. EPA is proposing action under the CAA on bases independent of
North Carolina's evaluation of EJ. Due to the nature of the action
being proposed here, this proposed action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. In
addition, there is no information in the record upon which this
decision is based that is inconsistent with the stated goal of
Executive Order 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 13, 2024.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2024-18495 Filed 8-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
