13944 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

shall constitute the official record of the Ambient Air Quality Standards Docket Center homepage at http:// proceeding. (NAAQS). www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the docket DATES: § 952.33 Public information. Written comments must be are listed in the http:// The Librarian of the Postal Service received at the address below on or www.regulations.gov index. Although maintains for public inspection in the before April 14, 2011. listed in the index, some information is Library copies of all initial, tentative ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other and final agency decisions and orders. identified by Docket ID Number EPA– information whose disclosure is The Recorder maintains the complete R09–OAR–2011—0131 by one of the restricted by statute). Certain other official record of every proceeding. following methods: material, such as copyrighted material, 1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http:// will be publicly available only in hard § 952.34 Ex parte communications. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line copy form. Publicly available docket The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 551(14), instructions for submitting comments. materials are available either 556(d), and 557(d) prohibiting ex parte 2. E-mail: [email protected]. electronically at http:// communications apply to proceedings 3. Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at under these rules of practice. Jerry Wamsley). the EPA Region 9, Air Division, Stanley F. Mires, 4. Mail: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region 9, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Chief Counsel, Legislative. Air Division, Planning Office (Air-2), 75 Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA [FR Doc. 2011–5872 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION BILLING CODE 7710–12–P California 94105. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such CONTACT section to view the hard copy deliveries are only accepted Monday of the docket. You may view the hard through Friday, 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., copy of the docket Monday through ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Friday, 9–5:30 PST, excluding Federal AGENCY excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for holidays. 40 CFR Part 52 deliveries of boxed information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Instructions: Direct your comments to Wamsley, U.S.E.P.A., Region 9, Air [EPA–R09–OAR–2011—0131, FRL–9280–5] Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011— Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Approval and Promulgation of Air 0131. Our policy is that EPA will Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA Quality Implementation Plans; State of include all comments received in the 94105; via telephone at (415) 947–4111; California; Regional Haze State public docket without change. EPA may or via electronic mail at Implementation Plan and Interstate make comments available online at [email protected]. http://www.regulations.gov, including Transport Plan; Interference With SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Visibility Requirement any personal information provided, Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ unless the comment includes or ‘‘our,’’ refer to EPA. AGENCY: Environmental Protection information claimed to be Confidential Agency (EPA). Business Information (CBI) or other Table of Contents ACTION: Proposed rule. information whose disclosure is I. The State’s Submittals restricted by statute. Do not submit II. What is the background for EPA’s SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve information through http:// proposed action? a revision to the California State www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you A. The Regional Haze Problem Implementation Plan (SIP) that consider to be CBI or otherwise B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s addresses regional haze for the first protected. The http:// Regional Haze Rule implementation period through 2018. www.regulations.gov Web site is an C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing This revision addresses the ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which Regional Haze D. Interstate Transport Pollution and requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA means EPA will not know your identity Visibility Requirements or ‘‘Act’’) and EPA’s rules that require or contact information unless you III. What are the requirements for regional states to prevent any future and remedy provide it in the body of your comment. haze SIPs? any existing anthropogenic impairment If you send an e-mail comment directly A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule of visibility in mandatory Class I areas to EPA, without going through http:// B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and caused by emissions of air pollutants www.regulations.gov, EPA will include Current Visibility Conditions from numerous sources located over a your e-mail address as part of the C. Determination of Reasonable Progress wide geographic area (also referred to as comment that is placed in the public Goals the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are docket and made available on the D. Best Available Retrofit Technology E. Long Term Strategy required to assure reasonable progress Internet. If you submit an electronic F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP toward the national goal of achieving comment, EPA recommends that you and Reasonably Attributable Visibility natural visibility conditions in Class I include your name and other contact Impairment areas. information in the body of your G. Monitoring Strategy and Other In addition, we are proposing to comment and with any disk or CD–ROM Implementation Plan Requirements approve certain portions of this you submit. If EPA cannot read your H. Consultation With States and Federal Regional Haze SIP revision and a related comment due to technical difficulties Land Managers SIP revision submitted by California on and cannot contact you for clarification, IV. EPA’s Analysis of the California Regional November 16, 2007, as meeting the EPA may not be able to consider your Haze Plan A. Affected Class I Areas in California requirements of CAA Section comment. Electronic files should avoid B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference the use of special characters, any form of Progress with other states’ measures to protect of encryption, and be free of any defects 1. Baseline and Natural Visibility visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and or viruses. For additional information Conditions 1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13945

C. California Emissions Inventories March 16, 2009 submittal includes II. What is the background for EPA’s D. Sources of Visibility Impairment public process documentation for the proposed action? 1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in CRHP and documentation of a duly California Class I Areas A. The Regional Haze Problem 2. California Contributions to Visibility noticed public hearing held on January Impairment in Class I Areas Outside of 22, 2009. Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and the State On November 16, 2007, ARB E. Best Available Retrofit Technology activities located across a broad Evaluation submitted the State Strategy for geographic area that emit fine particles California’s 2007 State Implementation 1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility Plan to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone and carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 4 Impairment PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 State Strategy). and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 3. Sources Already Controlled to BART Appendix C of the 2007 State Strategy, (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and in F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the as modified by Attachment A,5 contains Reasonable Progress Goals some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress the ‘‘Interstate Transport State organic compounds (VOC)). Fine Goals Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour particle precursors react in the 2. Interstate Consultation Ozone and PM2.5 to satisfy the atmosphere to form fine particulate G. Long-Term Strategy Requirements of Clean Air Act section matter which impairs visibility by 1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of California’’ scattering and absorbing light. Visibility a. Mobile Source Programs impairment reduces the clarity, color, b. Stationary and Area Source Regulations (2007 Transport SIP). The 2007 by Local Air Agencies Transport SIP addresses the Transport and visible distance that one can see. 2. Construction Activities SIP requirements of CAA section PM2.5 can also cause serious health 3. Source Retirement and Replacement 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 effects and mortality in humans and Schedules 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. contributes to environmental impacts, 4. Smoke Management Programs ARB’s November 16, 2007 submittal such as acid deposition and 5. Enforceability of Measures in the Long- eutrophication. Term Strategy includes public process documentation for the 2007 State Strategy, including Data from the existing visibility H. Monitoring Strategy ‘‘ I. Federal Land Manager Consultation and the 2007 Transport SIP. In addition, the monitoring network, the Interagency Coordination SIP revision includes documentation of Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-year a duly noticed public hearing held on network, show that visibility Progress Reports September 27, 2007 on the proposed V. EPA’s Analysis of How California’s impairment caused by air pollution 2007 State Strategy. Regional Haze Plan Meets Interstate occurs virtually all the time at most Transport Requirements For the portion of today’s proposed national park and wilderness areas. The VI. EPA’s Proposed Action action related to the 2007 Transport SIP, average visual range in many Class I VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews we are proposing action only with areas (i.e., national parks and memorial I. The State’s Submittals regard to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) parks, wilderness areas, and Today’s proposed action concerns two requirement that the SIP must prohibit international parks meeting certain size submittals from California. The first any source or other type of emissions criteria) in the western United States is submittal from the state is the California activity in California from emitting 100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to Regional Haze Plan (CRHP). The second pollutants that will interfere with two-thirds of the visual range that submittal from the state is the 2007 another state’s measures to protect would exist without anthropogenic air Transport SIP, submitted as Appendix C visibility. EPA intends to act in separate pollution.7 In most of the eastern Class to the State Strategy for California’s proposals on other portions of I areas of the United States, the average 2007 State Implementation Plan for the California’s 2007 Transport SIP that visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient address the remaining elements of CAA or about one-fifth of the visual range Air Quality Standards. Details on both section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 that would exist under estimated 6 natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, submittals follow below. 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. The California Air Resource Board 1999). (ARB) submitted the California Regional Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s Haze Plan (CRHP) to EPA on March 16, Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with attachments. 1 Regional Haze Rule 2009. ARB submitted additional 4 See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007, materials to EPA on September 8, 2009.2 from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 After discussion with EPA staff to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Amendments to the CAA, Congress regarding BART-eligible sources, ARB Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution created a program to protect visibility in submitted updated information about No. 07–28 (September 27, 2007). the nation’s national parks and 5 these sources on June 9, 2010.3 ARB’s See ‘‘Technical and Clarifying Modifications to wilderness areas.8 This section of the April 26, 2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 7 1 See the following documents: Transmittal letter Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised Draft Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be dated March 16, 2009 from James N. Goldstene, Appendices A through G,’’ included as Attachment viewed against the sky. Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, A to CARB’s Board Resolution 07–28 (September to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator 8 27, 2007). Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal USEPA Region IX; and, State of California, Air areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 6 Resource Board Resolution 09–4, dated January 22, The other elements of CAA section acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 2009, adopting the California Regional Haze Plan. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that California emission exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 2 Transmittal letter dated September 8, 2009 from sources do not (a) contribute significantly to that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the Air Resources Board, to Laura Yoshii, Acting NAAQS in any other State, (b) interfere with CAA and after consulting with the Department of Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with maintenance of these standards by any other State, the Interior, EPA promulgated a list of 156 areas attachments. and (c) interfere with measures required under Part where visibility is identified as an important value. 3 Transmittal letter dated June 9, 2010 from James C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air air quality in regard to these standards. Continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13946 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

CAA establishes as a national goal the term regional coordination among Interstate Transport for the 8-hour ‘‘prevention of any future, and the states, tribal governments and various Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 70 FR remedying of any existing, impairment federal agencies. As noted above, 21147. This included a finding that of visibility in mandatory Class I pollution affecting the air quality in California and other states had failed to Federal areas which impairment results Class I areas can be transported over submit SIPs to address interstate from manmade air pollution.’’ On long distances, even hundreds of transport of emissions affecting December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated kilometers. Therefore, to address visibility and started a two-year clock regulations to address visibility effectively the problem of visibility for the promulgation of a Federal impairment in Class I areas that is impairment in Class I areas, states need Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA, ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single to develop coordinated strategies with unless the state made a submission to source or small group of sources, i.e., one another, taking into account the meet the requirements of section ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility effect of emissions from one jurisdiction 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. on the air quality in another. submission. Id. These regulations represented the first Because the pollutants that lead to On August 15, 2006, EPA issued phase in addressing visibility regional haze can originate from sources guidance on this topic entitled, impairment. EPA deferred action on located across broad geographic areas, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation regional haze that emanates from a EPA has encouraged the states and Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current variety of sources until monitoring, tribes across the United States to Outstanding Obligations Under Section modeling, and scientific knowledge address visibility impairment from a 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and about the relationships between regional perspective. Five regional PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality pollutants and visibility impairment planning organizations (RPOs) were Standards’’ (‘‘2006 Guidance’’). were improved. developed to address regional haze and As identified in the 2006 Guidance, Congress added section 169B to the related issues. The RPOs first evaluated the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in CAA in 1990 to address regional haze technical information to better section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA issues. EPA promulgated a rule to understand how their states and tribes require each state to have a SIP that address regional haze on July 1, 1999, impact Class I areas across the country, prohibits emissions that adversely affect the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR and then pursued the development of other states in ways contemplated in the 35713). The RHR revised the existing regional strategies to reduce emissions statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains visibility regulations to integrate of particulate matter (PM) and other four distinct requirements related to the provisions addressing regional haze pollutants leading to regional haze. impacts of interstate transport. The SIP impairment and to establish a The Western Regional Air Partnership must prevent sources in the state from comprehensive visibility protection (WRAP), one of five RPOs nationally, is emitting pollutants in amounts which program for Class I areas. The a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, will: (1) Contribute significantly to requirements for regional haze, found at Federal, and local air agencies dealing nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included with air quality in the west. WRAP states; (2) interfere with maintenance of in EPA’s visibility protection member states include: Alaska, Arizona, the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, with provisions to prevent significant of the main elements of the regional New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, deterioration of air quality in other haze requirements are summarized in South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and states; or, (4) interfere with efforts to section III of this preamble. The Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members protect visibility in other states. requirement to submit a regional haze include Campo Band of Kumeyaay With respect to establishing that plan revision to the SIP applies to all 50 Indians, Confederated Salish and emissions from sources in the state states, the District of Columbia and the Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian would not interfere with measures in Virgin Islands.9 40 CFR 51.308(b) Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation other states to protect visibility, the requires states to submit the first of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 2006 Guidance recommended that states implementation plan addressing Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern make a submission indicating that it regional haze visibility impairment no Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, was premature, at that time, to later than December 17, 2007. Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone- determine whether there would be any Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. interference with measures in the C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing applicable SIP for another state Regional Haze D. Interstate Transport Pollution and designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ until the Visibility Requirements Successful implementation of the submission and approval of regional regional haze program will require long- On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for required to be submitted by December mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes PM2.5. See 62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652. 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. Section 110(a)(1)requires states to point in time, however, EPA believes it 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate submit a plan to address certain is now necessary to evaluate such as Class I additional areas which they consider to requirements for a new or revised section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in NAAQS within three years after a state to ensure that the existing SIP, or section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory promulgation of such standards, or the SIP as modified by the submission, Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I within such shorter time as EPA may contains adequate provisions to prevent Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the interference with the visibility programs Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory elements that such new plan of other states, such as for consistency Class I Federal area.’’ submissions must address, as with the assumptions for controls relied 9 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico applicable, including section upon by other states in establishing must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the reasonable progress goals to address satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under interstate transport of certain emissions. regional haze. the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section On April 25, 2005, EPA issued a The regional haze program, as 74–2–4). ‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for reflected in the RHR, recognizes the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13947

importance of addressing the long-range III. What are the requirements for To track changes in visibility over transport of pollutants for visibility and regional haze SIPs? time at each of the 156 Class I areas encourages states to work together to covered by the visibility program (40 A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule develop plans to address haze. The CFR 81.401–437), and, as part of the regulations explicitly require each state Regional haze SIPs must assure process for determining reasonable to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission reasonable progress towards the progress, states must calculate the reductions needed to meet the national goal of achieving natural degree of existing visibility impairment reasonable progress goals for visibility conditions in Class I areas. at each Class I area at the time of each neighboring Class I areas. Working Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s regional haze SIP submittal and together through a regional planning implementing regulations require states periodically review progress every five process, states are required to address to establish long-term strategies for years midway through each ten-year an agreed upon share of their making reasonable progress toward implementation period. To do this, the contribution to visibility impairment in meeting this goal. Implementation plans RHR requires states to determine the the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 must also give specific attention to degree of impairment (in deciviews) for CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these certain stationary sources that were in the average of the 20 percent least requirements, we anticipate that existence on August 7, 1977, but were impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most regional haze SIPs will contain not in operation before August 7, 1962, impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a measures that will achieve these and require these sources, where specified time period at each of their emissions reductions, and that these appropriate, to install BART controls for Class I areas. In addition, states must measures will meet the requirements of the purpose of eliminating or reducing also develop an estimate of natural section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). visibility impairment. The specific visibility conditions for the purpose of As a result of the regional planning regional haze SIP requirements are comparing progress toward the national efforts in the west, all states in the discussed in further detail below. goal. Natural visibility is determined by WRAP region contributed information estimating the natural concentrations of to a Technical Support System (TSS) B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, pollutants that cause visibility which provides an analysis of the and Current Visibility Conditions impairment and then calculating total causes of haze, and the levels of light extinction based on those contribution from all sources within The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric for measuring estimates. EPA has provided guidance each state to the visibility degradation of to states regarding how to calculate each Class I area. The WRAP states visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness baseline, natural and current visibility consulted in the development of conditions in documents titled, EPA’s reasonable progress goals, using the in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, Guidance for Estimating Natural products of this technical consultation Visibility Conditions Under the Regional process to co-develop their reasonable from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ progress goals for the western Class I B–03–005 located at http:// areas. The modeling done by the WRAP deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ relied on assumptions regarding rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter emissions over the relevant planning extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural period and embedded in these Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for assumptions were anticipated emissions logarithm function. The deciview is a Tracking Progress Under the Regional reductions in each of the states in the more useful measure for tracking Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 WRAP, including reductions from progress in improving visibility than September 2003 located at http:// installation of Best Available Retrofit light extinction itself because each www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ Technology (BART) at appropriate deciview change is an equal incremental rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred sources and other measures to be change in visibility perceived by the to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress adopted as part of the state’s long-term human eye. Most people can detect a 10 Guidance’’). strategy for addressing regional haze. change in visibility at one deciview. The reasonable progress goals in the The deciview is used to express For the first regional haze SIPs that draft and final regional haze SIPs that reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (which were due by December 17, 2007, have now been prepared by states in the are interim visibility goals towards ‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the west accordingly are based, in part, on meeting the national visibility goal), starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ the emissions reductions from nearby defining baseline, current and natural visibility impairment. Baseline visibility states that were agreed on through the conditions, and tracking changes in conditions represent the degree of WRAP process. visibility. The regional haze SIPs must visibility impairment for the 20 percent California’s 2007 Transport SIP refers contain measures that ensure least impaired days and 20 percent most to EPA’s 2006 Guidance and states that ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the impaired days for each calendar year the Regional Haze SIP would address national goal of preventing and from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring interstate regional haze impacts. We remedying visibility impairment in data for 2000 through 2004, states are interpret this to mean that California Class I areas caused by anthropogenic required to calculate the average degree intended its Regional Haze Plan to air pollution by reducing anthropogenic of visibility impairment for each Class I address the interstate visibility emissions that cause regional haze. The area, based on the average of annual requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for national goal is a return to natural values over the five-year period. The the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources comparison of initial baseline visibility NAAQS. Accordingly, our evaluation of of air pollution would no longer impair conditions to natural visibility the 2007 Transport SIP and whether it visibility in Class I areas. conditions indicates the amount of meets these CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) improvement necessary to attain natural visibility requirements relies on our 10 The preamble to the RHR provides additional visibility, while the future comparison evaluation of relevant information from details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 of baseline conditions to the then California’s Regional Haze Plan. (July 1, 1999). current conditions will indicate the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13948 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

amount of progress made. In general, the setting RPGs, each state with one or their best judgment in determining 2000–2004 baseline period is more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair considered the time from which also consult with potentially visibility in Class I areas. improvement in visibility is measured. ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby Under the BART Guidelines, states states with emission sources that may be may select an exemption threshold C. Determination of Reasonable Progress value for their BART modeling, below Goals affecting visibility impairment at the Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR which a BART-eligible source would The vehicle for ensuring continuing 51.308(d)(1)(iv). not be expected to cause or contribute progress towards achieving the natural to visibility impairment in any Class I visibility goal is the submission of a D. Best Available Retrofit Technology area. The state must document this series of regional haze SIPs from the Section 169A of the CAA directs exemption threshold value in the SIP states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two states to evaluate the use of retrofit and must state the basis for its selection distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one controls at certain larger, often of that value. Any source with for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I uncontrolled, older stationary sources in emissions that model above the area for each (approximately) ten-year order to address visibility impacts from threshold value would be subject to a implementation period. The RHR does these sources. Specifically, section BART determination review. The BART not mandate specific milestones or rates 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states Guidelines acknowledge varying of progress, but instead calls for states to revise their SIPs to contain such circumstances affecting different Class I to establish goals that provide for measures as may be necessary to make areas. States should consider the ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving reasonable progress towards the natural number of emission sources affecting natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility visibility goal, including a requirement the Class I areas at issue and the conditions. In setting reasonable that certain categories of existing major magnitude of the individual sources’ progress goals (RPGs), states must stationary sources 11 built between 1962 impacts. An exemption threshold set by provide for an improvement in visibility and 1977 procure, install, and operate the state should not be higher than 0.5 for the most impaired days over the the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology deciview. (approximately) ten-year period of the (BART)’’ as determined by the state. In their SIPs, states must identify SIP, and ensure no degradation in Under the RHR, states are directed to potential BART sources, described in visibility for the least impaired days conduct BART determinations for such the RHR as ‘‘BART-eligible sources’’, and over the same period. ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be document their BART control States have significant discretion in anticipated to cause or contribute to any determination analyses. In making establishing RPGs, but are required to visibility impairment in a Class I area. BART determinations, section consider the following factors Rather than requiring source-specific 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that established in section 169A of the CAA BART controls, states also have the states consider the following factors: (1) and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR flexibility to adopt an emissions trading The costs of compliance; (2) the energy 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of program or other alternative program as and non-air quality environmental compliance; (2) the time necessary for long as the alternative provides greater impacts of compliance; (3) any existing compliance; (3) the energy and non-air reasonable progress towards improving pollution control technology in use at quality environmental impacts of visibility than BART. the source; (4) the remaining useful life compliance; and, (4) the remaining On July 6, 2005, EPA published the of the source; and, (5) the degree of useful life of any potentially affected Guidelines for BART Determinations improvement in visibility which may sources. States must demonstrate in Under the Regional Haze Rule at reasonably be anticipated to result from their SIPs how these factors are Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 the use of such technology. States are considered when selecting the RPGs for (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART free to determine the weight and the best and worst days for each Guidelines’’) to assist states in significance assigned to each factor. applicable Class I area. States have determining which of their sources A regional haze SIP must include considerable flexibility in how they take should be subject to the BART source-specific BART emission limits these factors into consideration, as requirements and in determining and compliance schedules for each noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting appropriate emission limits for each source subject to BART. Once a state has Reasonable Progress Goals under the applicable source. In making a BART made its BART determination, the Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, determination for a fossil fuel-fired BART controls must be installed and in memorandum from William L. Wehrum, electric generating plant with a total operation as expeditiously as Acting Assistant Administrator for Air generating capacity in excess of 750 practicable, but no later than five years and Radiation, to EPA Regional megawatts, a state must use the after the date EPA approves the regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. approach set forth in the BART haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is Guidance’’). In setting the RPGs, states not required, to follow the BART required by the RHR, general SIP must also consider the rate of progress Guidelines in making BART requirements mandate that the SIP must needed to reach natural visibility determinations for other types of also include all regulatory requirements conditions by 2064 (referred to as the related to monitoring, recordkeeping, ‘‘ ’’ sources. uniform rate of progress (URP) or the States must address all visibility- and reporting for the BART controls on ‘‘ ’’ glide path ) and the emission reduction impairing pollutants emitted by a source the source. States have the flexibility to measures needed to achieve that rate of in the BART determination process. The choose the type of control measures progress over the ten-year period of the most significant visibility impairing they will use to meet the requirements SIP. Uniform progress towards pollutants are SO , NO and PM. EPA of BART. achievement of natural conditions by 2 X has indicated that states should use the year 2064 represents a rate of E. Long-Term Strategy progress that states are to use for 11 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ Consistent with the requirement in analytical comparison to the amount of potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section section 169A(b) of the CAA that states progress they expect to achieve. In 169A(g)(7). include in their regional haze SIP a ten-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13949

to fifteen-year strategy for making RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must the state, and where possible, in reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) provide for a periodic review and SIP electronic format; of the RHR requires that states include revision not less frequently than every • Developing a statewide inventory of a long-term strategy (LTS) in their three years until the date of submission emissions of pollutants that are regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the of the state’s first plan addressing reasonably anticipated to cause or compilation of all control measures a regional haze visibility impairment, contribute to visibility impairment in state will use during the which was due December 17, 2007, in any Class I area. The inventory must implementation period of the specific accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and include emissions for a baseline year, SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. (c). On or before this date, the state must emissions for the most recent year for The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable revise its plan to provide for review and which data are available, and estimates emissions limitations, compliance revision of a coordinated LTS for of future projected emissions. schedules, and other measures needed addressing RAVI and regional haze, and to achieve the reasonable progress goals’’ the state must submit the first such A state must also make a commitment for all Class I areas within and affected coordinated LTS with its first regional to update the inventory periodically; by emissions from the state. 40 CFR haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and and, 51.308(d)(3). periodic progress reports evaluating • Other elements, including When a state’s emissions are progress towards RPGs, must be reporting, recordkeeping, and other reasonably anticipated to cause or submitted consistent with the schedule measures necessary to assess and report contribute to visibility impairment in a for SIP submission and periodic on visibility. Class I area located in another state, the progress reports set forth in 40 CFR The RHR requires control strategies to RHR requires the impacted state to 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. cover an initial implementation period coordinate with contributing states to The periodic review of a state’s LTS extending to the year 2018, with a develop coordinated emissions must report on both regional haze and comprehensive reassessment and management strategies. 40 CFR RAVI impairment and must be revision of those strategies, as 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. appropriate, every ten years thereafter. contributing state must demonstrate that Periodic SIP revisions must meet the it has included in its SIP, all measures G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements core requirements of section 51.308(d) necessary to obtain its share of the with the exception of BART. The Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR emission reductions needed to meet the requirement to evaluate sources for requires a monitoring strategy for RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs BART applies only to the first regional measuring, characterizing, and reporting have provided forums for significant haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART on regional haze visibility impairment interstate consultation, but additional must continue to comply with the BART that is representative of all mandatory consultation between states may be provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted Class I areas within the state. The required to sufficiently address above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure strategy must be coordinated with the interstate visibility issues (e.g., where that the statutory requirement of monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR two states belong to different RPOs). reasonable progress will continue to be States should consider all types of 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this met. anthropogenic sources of visibility requirement may be met through impairment in developing their LTS, ‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency H. Consultation With States and Federal including stationary, minor, mobile, and Monitoring of Protected Visual Land Managers area sources. At a minimum, states must Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., describe how each of the following review and use of monitoring data from The RHR requires that states consult seven factors listed below are taken into the network. The monitoring strategy is with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) account in developing their LTS: (1) due with the first regional haze SIP, and before adopting and submitting their Emission reductions due to ongoing air it must be reviewed every five years. SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must pollution control programs, including The monitoring strategy must also provide FLMs an opportunity for measures to address RAVI; (2) measures provide for additional monitoring sites consultation, in person and at least sixty to mitigate the impacts of construction if the IMPROVE network is not days prior to holding any public hearing activities; (3) emissions limitations and sufficient to determine whether RPGs on the SIP. This consultation must schedules for compliance to achieve the will be met. include the opportunity for the FLMs to RPG; (4) source retirement and The SIP must also provide for the discuss their assessment of impairment replacement schedules; (5) smoke following: of visibility in any Class I area and to management techniques for agricultural • Procedures for using monitoring offer recommendations on the and forestry management purposes data and other information in a state development of the RPGs and on the including plans as currently exist with mandatory Class I areas to development and implementation of within the state for these purposes; (6) determine the contribution of emissions strategies to address visibility enforceability of emissions limitations from within the state to regional haze impairment. Furthermore, a state must and control measures; and, (7) the visibility impairment at Class I areas include in its SIP a description of how anticipated net effect on visibility due to both within and outside the state; it addressed any comments provided by projected changes in point, area, and • Procedures for using monitoring the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide mobile source emissions over the period data and other information in a state procedures for continuing consultation addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR with no mandatory Class I areas to between the state and FLMs regarding 51.308(d)(3)(v). determine the contribution of emissions the state’s visibility protection program, from within the state to regional haze including development and review of F. Coordination of the Regional Haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, SIP and Reasonably Attributable other states; and the implementation of other Visibility Impairment • Reporting of all visibility programs having the potential to As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 monitoring data to the Administrator at contribute to impairment of visibility in CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for least annually for each Class I area in Class I areas.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13950 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

IV. EPA’s Analysis of the California regions: Northern California; Sierra neighboring states that may be affected Regional Haze Plan California; Coastal California; and, by emissions from California. (CRHP, As described in Section I, the Southern California. Within each sub- Figure 8.1) region, the Class I areas are assigned to California Regional Haze SIP consists of B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform a specific representative IMPROVE the CRHP and two supplemental Rate of Progress submittals. ARB submitted the CRHP to monitor. For example, within the EPA on March 16, 2009. ARB submitted Northern California sub-region, Class I ARB developed the visibility additional materials to EPA on areas are assigned as follows: The estimates in the CRHP using models and September 8, 2009. ARB submitted Marble Mountain Wilderness and the analytical tools provided by the WRAP. updated information about BART- Yolla-Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness are We have reviewed the models and eligible sources on June 9, 2010. assigned to the Trinity IMPROVE analytical tools used by the WRAP and monitor; the Lava Beds National those used by ARB in developing the A. Affected Class I Areas in California Monument and South Warner CHRP. In summary, we found that the There are twenty-nine affected Class I Wilderness are assigned to the Lava models were used appropriately, areas in California.12 These Class I areas Beds IMPROVE monitor; and, the consistent with EPA guidance in effect include the following national parks, Lassen Volcanic National Park, the at the time of their use. The models national monuments, and wilderness Caribou wilderness, and the Thousand used by the WRAP were state-of-the- areas managed by the U.S. National Park Lakes wilderness are assigned to the science at the time the modeling was Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Lassen Volcanic IMPROVE monitor.13 conducted and model performance was U.S. Bureau of Land Management California’s four sub-regions for adequate for the purposes that they were (USBLM): analyzing regional haze represent used.14 groupings that consider the unique 1. Redwood National Park; terrain, ecology, land use, and weather 1. Baseline and Natural Visibility 2. Marble Mountain Wilderness; patterns around each IMPROVE Conditions 3. Lava Beds National Monument; monitor. ARB’s detailed examination of 4. South Warner Wilderness; Baseline visibility conditions the resultant ambient air monitoring 5. Thousand Lakes Wilderness; represent the degree of visibility data showed similarities within 6. Lassen Volcanic National Park; impairment for the 20 percent least definable intra-State regions. These four 7. Caribou Wilderness; impaired days and 20 percent most sub-regions are different from each other 8. Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness impaired days for each calendar year based on physiographic features and (includes land managed by USBLM); from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring land use patterns. California has 9. Point Reyes National Seashore; data for 2000 through 2004, states are 10. Ventana Wilderness; grouped its Class I Areas by geographic required to calculate the average degree 11. Pinnacles National Monument; sub-region to facilitate comparison of of visibility impairment for each Class I 12. Desolation Wilderness; different landscapes, meteorological area, based on the average of annual 13. Mokelumne Wilderness; conditions, the impacts of local and values over the five-year period. 14. Emigrant Wilderness; regional emissions, and the results of Appendix B of the CRHP provides the 15. Hoover Wilderness; local and regional control measures. details of these 2000–2004 baseline California identified Class I areas 16. Yosemite National Park; deciview calculations for each Class I outside of the state that are affected by 17. Ansel Adams Wilderness; area. 18. Kaiser Wilderness; California’s regional haze pollutants. For each Class I area, ARB calculated, 19. John Muir Wilderness; (CRHP, Figure 8.1) The CRHP also in deciviews, the current visibility 20. Kings Canyon National Park; examined specific visibility effects of conditions (worst 20 percent of days) for 21. Sequoia National Park; emissions on the following Class I areas the 2000–2004 baseline period (Table 1, 22. Dome Lands Wilderness (includes outside of the state: Jarbidge Wilderness column A) and the future natural land managed by the USBLM); Area, Nevada; Kalmiopsis Wilderness conditions for 2064 (Table 1, column D), 23. San Rafael Wilderness; Area and Crater Lake National Park, the long-term programmatic goal. ARB 24. San Gabriel Wilderness; Oregon; and, Sycamore Canyon calculated the deciview value 25. Cucamonga Wilderness; Wilderness Area and Grand Canyon representing the best visibility days 26. San Gorgonio Wilderness; National Park, Arizona. during 2000–2004 baseline conditions, a 27. San Jacinto Wilderness; To conclude, we believe that value that must be maintained in future 28. Agua Tibia Wilderness; and, California has identified all of Class I years.15 29. Joshua Tree National Park. areas in the state that may be affected by emissions from California. Also, 14 For our detailed review and discussion, please As part of its analysis, ARB California identified Class I areas in apportioned the state’s twenty-nine see ‘‘Technical Support Document for Technical Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air Class I areas into the following four sub- 13 Table 2–1, ‘‘IMPROVE monitors and Visibility Partnership in Support of Western Regional Haze at California Class I Areas’’, page 2–3, CRHP Plans’’, Final, February 2011 (WRAP TSD). 12 See Figure 1–2, ‘‘California’s Class I Areas and provides a detailed listing of IMPROVE monitor 15 See Table 8 for a complete listing of the ‘‘best IMPROVE Monitoring Network, page 1–4, CRHP, assignments. Also, see Figure 2–1, CRHP, 20 percent of days’’ and ‘‘worst 20 percent of days’’ for a listing and a map showing the twenty-nine ‘‘California’s Geographic Sub-regions’’, page 2–6 for and a comparison between 2000–2004 and 2018 Class I areas. a visual representation. deciview values for each California Class I area.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13951

TABLE 1—VISIBILITY CALCULATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS [Grouped by related IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews]

2018 2000–04 Reasonable 2018 Date natural Class I Area (NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, Baseline Progress Goal Uniform Rate 2064 Natural condition NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore) (worst 20% of (RPG) of Progress condition reached at days) (worst 20% of estimate RPG rate of days) (URP) improvement

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor) ...... 17.4 16.4 15.2 7.9 2137 Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ...... 15.1 14.4 13.4 7.9 2148 Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA (LAVO monitor) ...... 14.2 13.3 12.6 7.3 2123 Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) ...... 12.6 12.3 11.1 6.1 2307 Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ...... 12.9 12.5 11.7 7.7 2186 Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ...... 17.6 16.7 15.3 7.6 2160 Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS mon- itor) ...... 15.5 14.9 13.6 7.1 2200 Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ...... 25.4 22.7 21.2 7.7 2096 Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ...... 19.4 18.1 16.6 7.5 2132 Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ...... 18.5 17.8 17.4 13.9 2096 Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ...... 22.8 21.3 21.2 15.8 2069 Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) ...... 18.5 16.7 16.0 8.0 2086 San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) ...... 18.8 17.3 16.2 7.6 2109 San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ...... 19.9 17.4 16.9 7.0 2076 San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ...... 22.2 19.9 18.7 7.3 2095 Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ...... 23.5 21.6 19.8 7.6 2121 Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ...... 19.6 17.9 16.7 7.2 2106 Source: Table 7–2, page 7–10, CRHP.

2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate 2018; a 2018 uniform rate of progress each Class I area, the CRHP estimated ARB calculated the uniform rate of estimate for comparison purposes; and a emissions for 2018, the first ten-year progress (URP) estimate for each Class I 2064 natural condition estimate. We programmatic milestone. The emissions area using the 2000–2004 baseline propose to find that these estimates are inventories estimate annual emissions deciview and 2064 programmatic goal consistent with the requirements of the for the following haze producing deciview values. Essentially, the URP is RHR, particularly those requirements at pollutants: Oxides of nitrogen (NOX), represented as the line drawn between 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) and (iii). Also, we sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic a given Class I area’s 2004 baseline propose to find that California has compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), value and 2064 natural condition or produced URP estimates consistent with particulate matter smaller than 10 programmatic goal value. This line is the requirement in 40 CFR microns but larger than 2.5 microns (PM linear and assumes the same increment 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). coarse), fine particulate matter from of progress every year for 60 years. C. California Emissions Inventories organic carbon (OC Fine PM), fine Figure 7–1 of the CRHP provides an particulate matter from elemental The RHR requires a statewide illustration of the uniform rate of carbon (EC Fine PM), and fine emissions inventory of pollutants that progress calculation and its graphic particulate matter from other sources are reasonably anticipated to cause or representation. ARB then calculated (Other Fine PM). The emissions each Class I area’s URP estimate for contribute to visibility impairment in inventories are divided into four source 2018.16 The URPs for each Class I area any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR categories: Stationary sources, area are listed in Table 1, column C. 51.308(d)(4)(v). In establishing baseline EPA has determined that California visibility conditions in each Class I area, sources, mobile sources, and natural has produced the following visibility the CRHP provides an emissions sources. See Table 2. This information estimates in deciviews for each Class I inventory for 2002, representing the was also analyzed to compare area: Baseline visibility conditions; a mid-point of the 2000–2004 baseline anthropogenic versus natural sources of ten-year reasonable progress estimate for timeframe. Also, to chart progress in emissions. See Table 3.

TABLE 2—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR CALIFORNIA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND 2018 [Tons per year]

Stationary (tpy) Area (tpy) Mobile (tpy) Natural (tpy) Pollutant 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018

NOX ...... 104,991 109,514 112,988 112,789 909,380 370,385 93,043 93,043

16 See Table 7–2, ‘‘Summary of Reasonable Future Natural Conditions, 2018 Worst Days URP,’’ Progress Goal and Uniform Rate of Progress to page 7–10, CRHP.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13952 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR CALIFORNIA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND 2018—Continued [Tons per year]

Stationary (tpy) Area (tpy) Mobile (tpy) Natural (tpy) Pollutant 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018

SO2 ...... 42,227 49,632 9,139 10,134 11,588 3,800 9,840 9,840 VOC ...... 54,632 54,631 335,114 594,843 518,405 232,839 2,890,198 2,890,198 NH3 ...... 433 0 202,045 193,486 22,679 30,430 7,595 7,595 PM Coarse ...... 10,172 13,700 263,902 291,429 5,075 6,389 23,124 23,124 Fine PM OC ...... 5,515 3,696 44,986 36,777 13,991 15,834 92,097 92,097 Fine PM EC ...... 933 835 5,887 5,503 21,577 12,589 19,078 19,078 Other PM Fine ...... 10,537 12,317 55,005 54,016 2,125 2,929 5,880 5,880 Source: Table 3–2, ‘‘Individual Pollutants and Source Categories,’’ page 3–4 CRHP.

TABLE 3—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ANTHROPOGENIC AND NATURAL SOURCES

Source (tons/year) Anthropogenic Pollutant Anthropogenic Natural share (percent)

NOX ...... 1,127,359 93,043 92 SO2 ...... 62,954 9,840 86 VOC ...... 908,151 2,890,198 24 NH3 ...... 225,157 7,595 97 PM Coarse ...... 279,148 23,124 92 OC Fine PM ...... 64,491 92,097 41 EC Fine PM ...... 28,397 19,078 60 Other PM Fine ...... 67,667 5,880 92 Source: Based on Table 3–1, ‘‘Overall Emission Source Inventory,’’ page 3–3 CRHP.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment visibility impairment) for each Class I how much each pollutant contributed to Within Appendix B of the CRHP, ARB area in the state. EPA compiled light extinction at each of California’s analyzed the contribution of various California’s data for each of the Class I Class I areas during the period from pollutants to light extinction (i.e., areas into a single table. Table 4 shows 2000 to 2004.

TABLE 4—PERCENTAGE OF LIGHT EXTINCTION CONTRIBUTED BY EACH POLLUTANT IN CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS ON WORST 20% OF DAYS, 2000–2004 [Averaged observations]

NO3 SO4 and/or and/or Sea Class I area OMC EC CM Soil salt AmNO3 AmSO4

Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor) ...... 12.7 17.1 54.5 8.6 4.8 1 .8 0.6 Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ...... 8.9 17.3 55.9 8.4 6.6 2 .5 0.3 Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA (LAVO monitor) .. 10.9 20.1 50.8 9.1 5.9 3 .0 0.09 Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) ...... 8.7 18.4 50.9 10.8 7.6 3 .6 0.07 Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ...... 5.2 16.2 50.0 7.8 15.3 5 .2 0.32 Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ...... 14.8 14.4 52.9 8.8 7.3 1 .6 0.18 Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS monitor) ...... 18.1 21.9 38.3 7.2 11.1 2 .3 0.56 Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ...... 54.6 14.9 18.8 5.2 5.6 0 .76 0.25 Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ...... 25.8 19.5 27.8 6.3 17.9 2 .4 0.32 Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ...... 13.1 27.9 15.0 2.8 7.7 0 .56 33.0 Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ...... 39.6 14.5 12.5 3.4 7.7 0 .41 21.9 Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) ...... 31.6 25.7 24.4 8.5 7.0 1 .1 1.7 San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) ...... 20.2 36.0 22.8 4.9 12.6 1 .8 1.8 San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ...... 40.0 17.8 22.1 6.2 12.0 1 .3 0.58 San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ...... 53.0 15.6 16.5 6.1 7.2 1 .3 0.24 Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ...... 31.1 33 18.2 6.7 8.9 1 .4 0.83 Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ...... 42.9 19.3 16.2 6.5 12.3 2 .5 0.31 Class I Abbreviations: NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore. Pollutant Abbreviations: NO3 = Nitrate; AmNO3 = Ammonium Nitrate; SO4 = Sulfate; AmSO4 = Ammonium Sulfate; OMC = Organic Matter Car- bon; EC = Elemental Carbon; Soil = PM Soil; CM = Coarse Matter. Source: Appendix B, CA RHP. See each monitor analysis chapter.

As the data in Table 4 show, the three in California are: Nitrates, organic monitoring data also show that coarse primary contributors or drivers of haze carbon, and sulfates. Conversely, the mass particulate matter, elemental

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13953

carbon, and fine soils do not drive shipping activities. The Coastal sub- neighboring states, is an exception as it visibility impairment on worst case region and Southern California would be expected to impair visibility. days. experience larger impacts from offshore To conclude, California’s largest shipping. Class I Areas in Southern source of controllable visibility 1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in California show slightly higher impairing emissions is NO California Class I Areas X from mobile contributions from California sources (see the 2002 emissions According to Appendix B of the anthropogenic sulfate (22 percent to 35 inventory estimate in Table 2). Results CRHP, light extinction from nitrate is a percent) than other Class I Areas, from California’s source apportionment key driver of haze at many California reflecting the proximity to point sources analysis show that other anthropogenic Class I sites, especially in Southern such as refineries and port-related emissions contributing to haze come California and other sites located near activities. from sources that are not within major urban areas and transportation Coarse mass particulates do not drive California’s control. For example, corridors. (CRHP, Section 4.7.3) This haze on worst days in California. organic carbon emissions from natural finding is consistent with the WRAP’s Occasionally, coarse mass particulates sources such as wildfires and biogenics, Particulate Source Apportionment may contribute to a single worst day at whether from in-state or out-of-state, Technology (PSAT) showing that NOX some of the drier Class I areas in the contribute significantly to impaired from mobile sources was the most Mojave Desert and on the lee side of the visibility at all Class I areas in significant precursor of nitrate pollution Sierra Nevada. The days with slightly California. Also, visibility impairment at these Class I areas. The CRHP states, elevated coarse mass particulates are from sulfates is caused by international ‘‘The gradient of least to most influence almost always associated with sources outside the WRAP states, such in light extinction corresponds directly windblown dust events. These wind- as shipping. While California has to the amount of mobile source NOX driven events also cause very slight programs to reduce in-state organic emissions nearby.’’ (CRHP, page 7–3, see elevations in fine soil (PM2.5 fraction of carbon and SO2 emissions, the CRHP also sub-regional discussions in CRHP, dust), but this species never drives indicates that reductions in Section 4.7) worst days. anthropogenic sources of NOX, Appendix B of the CRHP also shows especially NO from mobile sources, that organic carbon is the significant Elemental carbon is not a driver of X will lead to significant visibility cause of worst day haze, in all of the haze on worst days in California. improvements in California Class I state but Southern California. The Despite its strong capability to areas. WRAP source apportionment analysis, extinguish light, emissions are very low which formed the basis for the analysis and are not expected to increase through 2. California Contributions to Visibility in the CRHP, suggests that wildfires, 2018. Impairment in Class I Areas Outside of biogenics (natural plant, animal, and Fine soil contributes least to haze the State soil organism emissions), and area statewide and is not a driver of haze on Within the baseline years, California sources are the primary contributors to worst days. Fine soil is less than 1 is estimated to have a very small impact organic carbon constituting from 25 percent of the annual contribution to on visibility impairment in the percent to 90 percent on worst visibility light extinction at many IMPROVE following Class I areas in nearby states: days. Biogenic emissions peak during monitors on best and worst days, with Jarbidge Wilderness Area, Nevada; the dry wildfire season, and contribute the highest annual average worst day Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area and Crater the most natural organic carbon, contribution being just over 5 percent at Lake National Park, Oregon; and, annually. Much of the directly emitted one isolated IMPROVE monitor (HOOV) Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area and organic carbon in California comes from in the rain shadow (drier lee side) of the wildfires. Also, source apportionment Sierra Nevada. On a day-to-day basis, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.

modeling found that the majority of fluctuations in concentration at the The CRHP shows the NOX and SOX secondary organic carbon is derived IMPROVE monitors are associated with contributions to haze during the high wind events. baseline years in these neighboring out- from biogenic emission sources. A 17 review of the PSAT analysis indicates To summarize, ARB found the three of-state Class I areas. The measured that pollution from wildfires dominates primary drivers of haze in California to contribution of NOX and SOX emissions in Class I areas with more than 50 come from the following source to particle light extinction is relatively percent light extinction from organic categories: Mobile sources for nitrate, small in these Class I areas, as is the carbon. natural sources for organic carbon, and estimated contribution of California Using PSAT modeling again, ARB off-shore and non-WRAP region sources NOX and SOX sources within these found sulfates also drive haze at some for sulfate. These three sources are measurements. When combined, these Class I areas on some worst days, with likely to retain a large influence on 2002 estimates of California’s the influence most perceptible along the visibility conditions in the future as contribution to visibility impairment in coast. PSAT results indicate that well. Studies show coarse mass out-of-state Class I areas suggest that Offshore and non-WRAP region sources particulate matter, elemental carbon, California emissions are responsible for are the largest contributors, accounting and fine soils do not drive visibility only a very small part of existing for approximately 50 to 75 percent of impairment on worst-case days. visibility impairment at out-of-state the measured sulfate levels. In-state Regarding emissions from other Class I areas. These base year estimates, anthropogenic sulfate emissions are western states and their visibility however, do not reflect future estimated to account for 1 percent to 35 effects, given mountains in the east and reductions in California’s emissions percent. (CRHP, Section 6.2.3). There north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and inventory through 2018. To conclude, the state has provided are very few large SOX sources in prevailing weather patterns that move California and low sulfur fuel is already from west to east, emissions from an emissions inventory of natural and required for both mobile and stationary neighboring states are not expected to 17 See Table 8.1 Nitrate Contribution to Haze in sources. Offshore emissions appear to significantly affect visibility in Baseline Years, page 8–3 and Table 8.2, Sulfate contribute both natural marine sulfates California’s Class I areas. Smoke, Contribution to Haze In Baseline Years, page 8–4, and SOX from marine commercial however, from large wildfires in CRHP.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13954 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

anthropogenic sources that contribute to impairing air pollutant, were put in California established a threshold of visibility impairment in Class I areas. place between August 7, 1962 and 0.5 deciview. With this threshold, any California estimated stationary, area, August 7, 1977 and whose operations source with an impact of greater than and mobile sources emissions for the fall within one or more of 26 0.5 deciview in any Class I area would required base year, 2002, and for 2018. specifically listed source categories. be subject to a BART analysis and, if Also, with the WRAP, the state did 40 CFR 51.301. California assumed that appropriate, BART emissions source apportionment analyses of any source meeting the emission criteria limitations. visibility impairment to determine the which fell into the 26 listed source California did not provide an relative contributions of haze causing categories was BART-eligible unless explanation for selecting the 0.5 pollutants in Class I areas, both inside there was adequate documentation to deciview threshold for determining and outside of California. We found verify that the source was not put into whether a BART source may be these analyses to be valid and place during the time period defined in reasonably anticipated to cause or technically correct. (See WRAP TSD.) the RHR. This analysis yielded a list of contribute to any visibility impairment Consequently, we propose to find that 28 sources, found in Table 5–2 of the in a Class I area. Based on EPA’s review the state has met the requirements of 40 plan.19 Three of the sources identified of the BART-eligible sources in CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) and (d)(4)(v). in this table were determined to have California, however, EPA is proposing shut down: The BART-eligible units at to find that a 0.5 dv threshold is E. Best Available Retrofit Technology the TXI Cement plant in Oro Grande; 20 appropriate, given the specific facts in Evaluation the Spreckels Sugar plant in Mendota; 21 California. California is required to evaluate the and, the Mirant electric generating EPA’s BART Guidelines recommend use of best available retrofit technology station in San Francisco.22 These that states ‘‘consider the number of (BART) controls at 26 types of major sources have shutdown and/or BART sources affecting the Class I areas stationary sources 18 built between 1962 decommissioned their BART eligible at issue and the magnitude of the and 1977 that have the potential to emit sources and so were eliminated from individual sources’ impacts.’’ 70 FR 250 tons or more of any pollutant and further review by ARB.23 39104, 39161. The BART Guidelines may reasonably be anticipated to cause also state, ‘‘In general, a larger number 2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility or contribute to any impairment of of BART sources causing impacts in a Impairment visibility in any Class I area. CAA Class I area may warrant a lower Section 169A(b)(2)(A) and 40 CFR The second phase of the BART contribution threshold.’’ Id. An email 51.308(e). The state must submit a list determination process is to identify from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, of all BART-eligible sources within the those BART-eligible sources that may California Air Resources Board to Greg state, and a determination of BART reasonably be anticipated to cause or Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011 controls, including emission limitations contribute to visibility impairment at (Suarez-Murias email) included an and schedules for compliance, for those any Class I area and are, therefore, attachment with details about the Class sources subject to BART. Each source subject to BART. As explained above, I areas nearest to BART sources for subject to BART is required to install EPA has issued guidelines that provide those BART sources that either showed and operate BART, as expeditiously as states with guidance for addressing the an impact less than 0.5 deciview, or practicable, but no later than five years BART requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 were consistent with EPA’s model plant after EPA approval of the statewide Appendix Y; see also, 70 FR 39104 (July analysis. Modeling for the sources in the regional haze SIP revision. CAA Section 6, 2005). The BART Guidelines describe Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). how states may consider exempting (RECLAIM) program in the South Coast some BART-eligible sources from Air Quality Management District 1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART further BART review based on (SCAQMD) showed that their collective The first phase of a BART evaluation dispersion modeling showing that the impact would be well below the 0.5 is to identify all the BART-eligible sources contribute below a certain deciview threshold, therefore further sources within a state’s boundaries. threshold amount. Generally, states may documentation regarding the Class I BART eligible sources are those sources not establish a contribution threshold areas is not necessary. Table 5 shows which have the potential to emit 250 that exceeds 0.5 deciview impact. 70 FR these details from the Suarez-Murias e- tons per year or more of a visibility- 39161 (July 6, 2005). mail.

TABLE 5—CLASS I AREAS IMPACTED BY BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES BELOW THE 0.5 DECIVIEW (dv) THRESHOLD

Model Emission Distance Source result rate [tpy] [km] Nearest class I area

Searles Industrial ...... 0.208 dv ...... *∼1900 70 Dome Lands WA. Big West Refineries ...... Model plant ... 313 80 Dome Lands WA. Chevron Richmond Refinery ...... 0.393 dv ...... *∼1900 30 Pt. Reyes NS. Conoco Phillips Refinery Rodeo ...... 0.366 dv ...... *∼2200 40 Pt. Reyes NS. Tesoro Refinery Martinez ...... 0.069 dv ...... *∼500 50 Pt. Reyes NS. Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (Martinez) ...... 0.092 dv ...... ∼700 50 Pt. Reyes NS. Shell Refinery Martinez ...... 0.169 dv ...... *∼1100 50 Pt. Reyes NS. Valero Refinery Benicia ...... 0.291 dv ...... *∼7700 50 Pt. Reyes NS.

18 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 20 June 2010 supplement, August 4, 2009 letter Licensing Case Docket Number 04–AFC–1. (http:// potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section from Alan J. De Salvio, Mojave Desert Air Quality www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/sanfrancisco/ 169A(g)(7). Management District to Karen Magliano, California index.html) Air Resources Board with attachment. 19 The final version of this table may be found in 23 See Revised Table 5–2 (March 2010 version) in 21 Ibid. the technical supplement to the SIP submitted on attachments to June 2010 supplement. 22 See California Energy Commission San June 9, 2010. Francisco Electric Reliability Project Power Plant

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:30 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13955

TABLE 5—CLASS I AREAS IMPACTED BY BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES BELOW THE 0.5 DECIVIEW (DV) THRESHOLD— Continued

Model Emission Distance Source result rate [tpy] [km] Nearest class I area

Mirant Pittsburg ...... Model plant ... 559 74 Pt. Reyes NS. Mirant Antioch ...... Model plant ... 277 79 Pt. Reyes NS. Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant Ventura ...... Model plant ... 314 48 San Gabriel WA. So Cal Gas ...... Model plant ... 212 52 San Gabriel WA. Coolwater Reliant Dagget ...... 0.489 dv ...... *∼3100 70 San Gorgonio WA. Reliant ...... Model plant ... 659 70 San Rafael WA. JR Simplot Lathrop ...... Model plant ... 600 101 Yosemite NP.

* Annual emissions of NOX and SO2 estimated by rounding up from 24-hr max emissions used in modeling, multiplied by 365 days.

Table 5 shows that there are three visibility impairment on the worst 20 evaluate the visibility impacts of an Class I areas affected by multiple BART- percent of days at Point Reyes NS is example facility and apply those results eligible sources that California has caused primarily by nitrate (39.59%), to similar facilities. Based on EPA’s determined are not subject to BART: sea salt (21.86%) and sulfate (14.54%). model plant analysis, we believe that a Dome Lands WA, San Gabriel WA, and (CRHP, page B–105) Sea salt is clearly state that has established 0.5 deciview Point Reyes NS. The Dome Lands WA non-anthropogenic. According to the as a contribution threshold could is impacted by two BART-eligible WRAP source apportionment study reasonably exempt from the BART sources. The Searles Industrial source relied upon for the CRHP, nitrate review process sources that emit less was modeled to have a 0.208 deciview extinction on the worst 20 percent of than 500 tons per year of NO or SO effect, which is well below the 0.5 days is overwhelmingly from mobile X 2 (or combined NO and SO ), as long as deciview threshold. The Big West sources of NO , not stationary sources. X 2 X these sources are located more than 50 Refineries plant is well within the (CRHP, page B–108) The sulfate on the parameters of the EPA model plant. worst 20 percent of days at Point Reyes kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that emit less than 1000 tons per Furthermore, since it has a lower NS is primarily from SO2 emitted from emission rate than Searles Industrial offshore sources and wildfires in Oregon year of NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX and is further from the Dome Lands during the 2000–2004 base year period, and SO2) that are located more than 100 Class I area, it is reasonable to assume and the base year period contribution kilometers from any Class I area. If a that Big West Refineries maximum from California stationary sources is state has BART eligible sources that fall contribution to visibility impairment is relatively small. Moreover, the within these parameters, then it is also well below the 0.5 deciview stationary source contribution occurred reasonable to assume that these sources threshold. The San Gabriel WA is also during the baseline period, which was do not cause or contribute to visibility affected by two BART-eligible sources. before the Valero Refinery in Benicia impairment at Class I areas; therefore, Each source is well below the EPA was required to achieve significant SO2 they are not subject to BART controls. model plant parameters and both are reductions as a result of an EPA- California evaluated its remaining unlikely to have a significant effect on negotiated consent decree. (CRHP, Page BART eligible sources and determined visibility at that Class I area. 5–24) In conclusion, based on the that only three sources were subject to The Point Reyes NS is affected by factors discussed above, the EPA finds BART. The other sources demonstrated several BART-eligible sources that the 0.5 deciview threshold to be California has determined are not appropriate for California. that, considering their emissions and subject to BART. California’s analysis, The BART Guidelines allow using distance to the nearest Class I area, they however, supports its claim that these model plants to determine which BART were not causing or contributing to sources are not causing visibility eligible sources are not reasonably visibility impairment at Class I areas. impairment at Point Reyes NS. expected to cause or contribute to The results of this analysis are shown in Appendix B to the CRHP shows that visibility impairment. That is, one can Table 6.

TABLE 6—RESULTS OF SUBJECT TO BART ANALYSIS IN CALIFORNIA

BART eligible source Analysis results deciview (dv)

Tesoro Refinery Martinez ...... 0.069 dv. Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant Martinez ...... 0.092 dv. Shell Refinery Martinez ...... 0.169 dv. Searles Industrial ...... 0.208 dv. Valero Refinery Benicia ...... 0.291 dv. Conoco Phillips Refinery Rodeo ...... 0.366 dv. Chevron Richmond Refinery ...... 0.393 dv. Coolwater Reliant Dagget ...... 0.489 dv. BP Refinery (Carson) ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. California Portland Cement ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. Chevron Refinery (El Segundo) ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. Conoco Refinery (Carson) ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. Conoco Refinery (Wilmington) ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. Exxon Refinery (Torrance) ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. Tesoro Refinery (Wilmington) ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. Ultramar Refinery ...... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13956 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6—RESULTS OF SUBJECT TO BART ANALYSIS IN CALIFORNIA—Continued

BART eligible source Analysis results deciview (dv)

Big West Refineries ...... Comparable to EPA model plant. JR Simplot Lathrop ...... Comparable to EPA model plant. Mirant Power Plant (Antioch) ...... Comparable to EPA model plant. Mirant Power Plant (Pittsburg) ...... Comparable to EPA model plant. Reliant Ventura County ...... Comparable to EPA model plant. Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (South Coast) ...... Comparable to EPA model plant. So Cal Gas ...... Comparable to EPA model plant. Cabrillo Encina Plant ...... Subject to BART. Duke Energy South Bay ...... Subject to BART. Dynegy Moss Landing ...... Subject to BART. Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011.

The air control districts with by the SCAQMD. All of these sources on visibility at Class I areas, meaning authority over these sources modeled are part of the RECLAIM emissions cap none of them cause or contribute to the visibility impacts of the first eight and trade system in the SCAQMD. The visibility impairment at these protected sources on Table 5 using CalPUFF SCAQMD modeled all of the sources in areas. The EPA evaluated the modeling (Tesoro Refinery Martinez through RECLAIM (including these nine analyses conducted by all the districts Coolwater Reliant Dagget). These sources) and demonstrated that the and found them to be valid and sources were modeled individually and entire universe of sources in RECLAIM technically correct.24 (See BART TSD.) the results indicated that they do not has an aggregate impact of less than a The next seven sources used the EPA cause or contribute to visibility 0.244 deciview on Class I areas. model plant analysis described impairment at Class I areas. The next Therefore, each individual source must previously in this section. The details nine sources were modeled collectively have a less than 0.244 deciview impact on these sources are shown in Table 7.

TABLE 7—CALIFORNIA BART SOURCES MEETING THE EPA MODEL PLANT REQUIREMENTS

Emissions Source (tons per Distance Class I area year) (kilometers) affected

Big West Refineries ...... 313 80 Domelands WA. JR Simplot Lathrop ...... 600 101 Yosemite NP. Mirant Power Plant Antioch ...... 277 79 Pt. Reyes NS. Mirant Power Plant Pittsburg ...... 559 74 Pt. Reyes NS. Reliant Ventura County ...... 659 70 San Rafael WA. Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (South Coast) ...... 314 48 San Gabriel WA. So Cal Gas ...... 212 52 San Gabriel WA. Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011.

EPA’s model plant analysis indicated exceed 500 tpy but emit less than 1000 NOX emissions are the primary concern, that a source emitting less than 500 tons tpy. The JR Simplot Lathrop source is considering visibility impairment. Each per year (tpy) of combined NOX and over 100 kilometers from the nearest of these sources already control NOX SOX would not contribute to visibility Class I area and so is consistent with the emissions with selective catalytic impairment if it were located more than model plant. The Mirant Power Plant in reduction (SCR) technology. This 50 kilometers from the nearest Class I Pittsburg and the Reliant Plant in technology is recognized as the Best area. Four of the sources in Table 6 emit Ventura County are somewhat less than Available Control Technology for less than 500 tpy and three of them are 100 kilometers from their respective natural gas burning electric generating more than 50 kilometers away from the Class I areas; however, their emissions units and is required on most new sources of this type. As such, SCR nearest Class I area. The Rhodia Sulfuric are significantly less than 1000 tpy. For represents BART for these sources. Acid Plant is 48 kilometers from the San these reasons, we propose to find that these are also consistent with the EPA To conclude, California evaluated the Gabriel Wilderness Area. However, model plant analysis. required universe of sources for since its emission rate is well below 500 applicability of BART controls using the tons per year, this source is also 3. Sources Already Controlled to BART criteria in the RHR and the BART consistent with the model plant The remaining BART eligible sources, Guidance. The state found that three analysis. The EPA model plant analysis Cabrillo Encina Plant, Duke Energy sources were eligible for the application also indicated that sources that emit less (South Bay), and Dynegy Moss Landing of BART controls: Cabrillo Encina Plant, than 1000 tons per year do not are subject to BART. These plants are all Duke Energy (South Bay), and Dynegy contribute to visibility impairment if natural gas burning electric generating Moss Landing. After a review of the they are located more than 100 units. Since these sources burn natural control technologies in use at these kilometers away from the nearest Class gas, their SOX emissions are not BART eligible plants, California found I area. Three of the sources in Table 6 significant with respect to visibility. that BART level controls were already

24 For our detailed review and discussion, please Review of the California Regional Haze Plan’s (BART) Evaluation’’, Prepared by USEPA Region 9, see ‘‘Technical Support Document for USEPA’s Modeling for the Best Available Retrofit Technology March 4, 2011 (BART TSD).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13957

in place at the sources with a potential F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the and ensure no degradation in visibility to impair visibility at Class I areas. We Reasonable Progress Goals for the least impaired days over the propose to find that California has The RHR requires states to establish a period of the SIP. conducted a BART evaluation goal, expressed in deciviews, for each The RPGs for the CRHP show consistent with the requirement in 40 Class I area within the state that visibility improvement by 2018 for both CFR 51.308(e). provides for reasonable progress toward ‘‘worst 20 percent of days’’ and ‘‘best 20 achieving natural visibility conditions percent of days’’ in all Class I areas by 2064. The RPG must improve when compared to the baseline ‘‘worst’’ visibility for the most impaired days, and ‘‘best’’ days. See Table 8.

TABLE 8—BASELINE VERSUS 2018 VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS [Grouped by respective IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews]

2018 Esti- Class I area (NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, 2000–04 mated worst 2018 URP 2000–04 2018 Esti- NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore) Baseline worst haze days estimate Baseline best mated best haze days (RPG) haze days haze days

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)

Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor) ...... 17.4 16.4 15.2 3.4 3.2 Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ...... 15.1 14.4 13.4 3.2 3.0 Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA ... (LAVO monitor) ...... 14.2 13.3 12.6 2.7 2.5 Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) ...... 12.6 12.3 11.1 2.5 2.5 Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ...... 12.9 12.5 11.7 1.4 1.3 Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ...... 17.6 16.7 15.3 3.4 3.2 Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS mon- itor) ...... 15.5 14.9 13.6 2.3 2.1 Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ...... 25.4 22.7 21.2 8.8 8.1 Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ...... 19.4 18.1 16.6 5.1 4.7 Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ...... 18.5 17.8 17.4 6.1 5.8 Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ...... 22.8 21.3 21.2 10.5 10.1 Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) ...... 18.5 16.7 16.0 8.9 8.1 San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) ...... 18.8 17.3 16.2 6.4 5.8 San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ...... 19.9 17.4 16.9 4.1 4.8 San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ...... 22.2 19.9 18.7 5.4 5.0 Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ...... 23.5 21.6 19.8 9.6 8.9 Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ...... 19.6 17.9 16.7 6.1 5.7 Sources: Table 6–1, page 6–10; and Table 7–2, page 7–10, CRHP.

Also, as required by the RHR, The RHR specifies that RPGs, as well as and their precursors. In particular, the California estimated the time each Class the demonstration of the reasonableness 2018 Progress Strategy predicts I area would take to reach natural of attainment beyond 2064, are to be significant reductions in the nitrate conditions under the RPG rate of evaluated through the use of four component of haze from NOX emission visibility improvement (see Table 1, factors: Costs of compliance; time reductions achieved by California’s column E). While some of the time necessary for compliance; energy and, mobile source control programs. estimates are close to the 2064 natural non-air quality environmental impacts Weighted emissions, or back trajectory conditions goal, none of the estimates of compliance; and remaining useful life analyses, along with predictive show that natural conditions will be of any potentially affected sources. 40 modeling show that substantial achieved by 2064 in California’s Class I CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A); 51.308(d)(1)(ii). reductions in nitrate, roughly 50 percent areas. As explained below, we believe the at every Class I area, can be achieved CRHP demonstrates these four factors through mobile source NO emission 1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress X and that the RPGs in the plan are reductions in the 2018 Progress Goals reasonable. Strategy. (CRHP, page 7–3) Because California’s RPG estimates California’s RPGs are projected The analysis of the sources of haze provide for a rate of improvement in visibility levels based on atmospheric from section 4.7 of CRHP shows that the visibility slower than the rate needed to modeling performed by the WRAP. The primary anthropogenic source of haze show attainment of natural conditions WRAP modeling was based, in part, on within California is NOX emissions. by 2064, the RHR requires the state to California’s 2018 emissions projections Therefore, the largest impact California demonstrate why its RPGs are derived from the emissions reductions can make to improve visibility is by reasonable and why a rate of progress described in California’s 2018 Progress reducing anthropogenic sources of the leading to attainment by 2064 is not Strategy. California’s 2018 Progress NOX emissions that lead to the 25 reasonable. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). Strategy is based on the identification of formation of nitrates, especially, NOX the major drivers of haze on worst days, from mobile sources. According to 25 The RHR also requires that the state provide to as well as the sources of these pollutants ARB’s 2018 emissions inventory, the public an assessment of the number of years it will take to reach natural visibility conditions. 40 California will have reduced NOX CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). California’s estimates were comment process prior to ARB’s adoption of the emissions by 47 percent compared to noticed to the public during the public review and CRHP. 2002, with the majority of those

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13958 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

emission reductions coming from mobile source SOX emissions will offset emissions inventory predicts reductions mobile sources. The 2018 emissions increases in other source categories. in organic carbon PM and mobile source inventory also shows that reductions in (See Table 2) In addition, the 2018 elemental carbon PM emissions.

TABLE 9—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS INVENTORY FROM 2002 TO 2018

2002 Anthropo- 2018 Anthropo- genic emissions genic emissions Percentage Pollutant inventory inventory change (tpy) (tpy)

NOX ...... 1,127,359 592,688 ¥47 SO2 ...... 62,954 63,566 1 VOC ...... 908,151 882,313 ¥3 NH3 ...... 225,157 223,916 ¥1 PM Coarse ...... 279,149 311,518 12 Fine PM OC ...... 64,492 56,307 ¥13 Fine PM EC ...... 28,397 18,927 ¥33 Other PM Fine ...... 67,667 69,262 2

California also evaluated all source RPGs may be greater, lesser, or the state. California’s 2018 Progress categories that could reasonably be equivalent to the glide path. The glide Strategy reflects the measures that were expected to contribute to visibility path to 2064 represents a rate of included in the 2002 and 2018 emission impairment at Class I areas.26 This progress which states are to use for inventories and WRAP analyses that analysis considered, for each sub-region, analytical comparison to the amount of produced California’s reasonable the species contributing to haze and the progress they expect to achieve. Given progress goals. The RHR requires that a source categories responsible for the strenuous efforts needed in state’s strategy consider emission anthropogenic emissions of precursors California to achieve the emission reductions from on-going control to those species. For example, in the reductions described in Tables 2 and 9, programs, construction activity Sierra Nevada mountain range, nitrate the resulting 2018 RPGs, and the mitigation, source retirement and pollution accounts for 17 percent of constraints and uncertainties described replacement, and smoke management light extinction on the most impaired above, we believe it would be techniques. Due to California’s severe days of the baseline period. Because unreasonable to require the CRHP to air quality problems, the state has nitrate is the predominant meet the 2018 URP estimates. emissions control programs that address anthropogenic pollutant in this area and Consequently, we propose to find that these RHR considerations. most of the emissions are from within the state has demonstrated that its 2018 California’s 2018 Progress Strategy the state, California examined the RPGs are reasonable and consistent with (Chapter 4 of the CRHP) includes anthropogenic sources of NOX in that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) Federal, State and local control area. A PSAT analysis indicated that 76 and 51.308(d)(1)(ii). measures. As reflected in the 2018 percent of those emissions were from emissions inventory, these control 2. Interstate Consultation mobile sources. California also measures address the main considered SO2 emissions, which The CRHP, along with its RPGs, is the anthropogenic constituents of comprise 14 percent of light extinction result of California’s continuous California’s visibility problem: NOX, on the most impaired days; 45 percent consultation with thirteen other western SOX, and directly emitted particulate of these emissions were shown by PSAT states through regular meetings of the matter emissions. As the RPGs in Table to be from outside the modeling domain WRAP Working Groups and Forums, via 8 suggest, the measures in the 2018 while 22 percent were from within conference calls, face-to-face meetings, Progress Strategy will improve visibility California. California examined these and workshops over the timeframe of in all California Class I areas. Also, sources and demonstrated that they several years. Through the WRAP implementation of the 2018 Progress were already reasonably controlled. consultative process, California resolved Strategy is expected to minimize (CRHP, Chapter 4, Section 4.7) technical tasks and policy decisions California’s existing very small In addition, through the state’s efforts related to monitoring, emissions, fire contribution to visibility impairment in to attain and maintain the Federal and tracking, application of BART, source downwind states. The CRHP describes State health-based air quality standards, attribution, modeling, and control ongoing state and local emission control the state asserts that every reasonable measure issues. Emissions from other measures, as summarized below. measure is included in the state’s 2018 western US states are not expected to affect California significantly, except for 1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Progress Strategy underlying the RPGs Programs for Class I areas. smoke from large wildfires. EPA also notes that there is a degree Furthermore, there were no comments Air pollution control programs in of uncertainty, due to wildfires and on the CRHP from neighboring states California are divided among the state, biogenic emissions, in the values regarding the plan’s baseline visibility multi-county air districts, and county representing baseline and natural estimates, 2018 visibility projections, level air quality control agencies. conditions. RPGs, or 2018 Progress Strategy. Among state agencies, ARB is responsible for regulating mobile Furthermore, as explained in the G. Long-Term Strategy EPA’s RPG Guidance, the 2018 URP sources emissions (except where estimate is not a presumptive target, and The RHR requires California to submit preempted by Federal law) and a long-term strategy addressing regional consumer products, developing fuel 26 Please see CRHP Chapter 4, Section 4.7, haze visibility impairment for the Class specifications, establishing gasoline Regional Analysis of Source Categories. I areas affected by the emissions from vapor recovery standards and certifying

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13959

vapor recovery systems. Local air improvement as related rules adopted retirement of engines using incentive districts have primary responsibility for during the 2000–2004 baseline period funding programs together with in-use regulating stationary and area wide continue their implementation. (CRHP, regulations. For example, using the Carl sources. page 7–4) Moyer Program, the state has invested up to $170 million annually to clean up a. Mobile Source Programs b. Stationary and Area Source as many as 7,500 older, higher-emitting Regulations by Local Air Agencies California’s regulation of mobile engines, thereby reducing NOX source emissions covers new vehicle California’s thirty-five local air emissions by as much as 24 tons per emissions standards, low polluting fuel districts and air quality control agencies day. (CRHP, pages 4–11 to 4–12) formulations, and off-road sources such are primarily responsible for regulating 4. Smoke Management Programs as lawn and garden equipment, emissions from stationary and area-wide recreational vehicles and boats, and sources through rules and permitting California’s ‘‘Smoke Management construction equipment. With the programs. For example, air district Guidelines for Agricultural and implementation of the 2018 Control regulated sources include industrial Prescribed Burning (SMG)’’ is the basis Strategy, the state predicts that sources like factories, refineries, and for the state’s Smoke Management reductions from mobile sources will power plants; commercial sources like Program. Together, the ARB and the occur as the result of several regulatory gas stations, dry cleaners, and paint local air pollution control districts efforts. spray booth operations; residential implement the SMG. ARB oversees the For example, according to the CRHP, sources like fireplaces, water heaters, program and makes daily burn/no burn California’s 2008 low-emission vehicle and house paints; and miscellaneous day decisions for each of the air basins standards and reformulated gasoline non-mobile sources like emergency in the state. In turn, air districts have reduced VOC emissions to less than 50 generators. Air districts also inspect and adopted comprehensive smoke pounds per 100,000 miles traveled, and test fuel vapor recovery systems to management programs and regulations predicted reductions for the 2010 model check that such systems are operating as to implement and enforce the SMG. year to be approximately 10 pounds per certified.27 These smoke management programs 100,000 miles. California also points out contain requirements for agricultural that mobile source organic carbon 2. Construction Activities and prescribed burns permits; daily emissions are reduced beyond what is Many air districts have adopted burn authorizations; annual reporting; required under national regulations. stringent rules to control fugitive dust registration and smoke management (CRHP, page 4–2 to 4–3) emissions from construction activities. plans for prescribed burns.28 According ARB’s efforts with EPA to regulate These rules include the following to the CRHP, smoke management plans large diesel, gasoline and liquid examples: San Joaquin Valley Air must specifically consider Class I Areas petroleum gas equipment will result in Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) as sensitive receptors. (CRHP, pages 4– new large off-road equipment that will Regulation 8—Fugitive PM–10 12 and 4–13) be 98 percent cleaner. These regulations Prohibitions, adopted in 2004 (71 FR will reduce both NOX and elemental 5. Enforceability of Measures in the 8461, (February 17, 2006)); and, Long-Term Strategy carbon emissions. (CRHP, page 4–4) SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust (73 In addition, ARB has worked with FR 12639, (March 10, 2008)). The RHR requires that the state’s long- EPA to reduce emissions from goods In July 2007, ARB adopted a term strategy include enforceable movement sources. For example, the regulation designed to reduce diesel and measures necessary to achieve the CRHP estimates that low-sulfur fuel NOX emissions from the state’s reasonable progress goals at every Class requirements will reduce SOX emissions estimated 180,000 off-road vehicles I area (inside and outside the state) from ship auxiliary engines by 96 used in construction, mining, airport affected by emissions from that state. 40 percent and new locomotive engines by ground support and other industries. CFR 51.308(d)(3). California’s RPGs are 50–60 percent. (CRHP, Table 4–1 and These regulations were not adopted in based on the region-wide inventory discussion, page 4–4) time to be considered by the WRAP and developed by the WRAP states that ARB plans to reduce emissions from the state when producing the RPGs; included data for California sources. smaller engines, such as lawn and however, ARB estimates that by 2020 The emissions inventory from California garden equipment, recreational vehicles, ‘‘particulate matter will be reduced by was based on rules adopted through and boats, achieving 82–90 percent 74 percent and NO will be reduced by 2004. (CRHP, page 3–1) fewer NO emissions than uncontrolled X X 32 percent compared to current levels.’’ Table 2 of this notice shows changes units. (CRHP, Table 4–1, and (CRHP, page 4–11) in emissions by pollutant and source discussion, page 4–4) category between 2002 and 2018. The The CRHP describes California’s 3. Source Retirement and Replacement pollutants of concern for visibility efforts to reduce diesel PM emissions Schedules impairment are NOX, SO2, and VOC (as since 2000, when California began ARB reports that older and high organic carbon precursor). A review of implementing its Diesel Risk Reduction polluting sources produce the majority Table 2 indicates that moderate Plan, aimed at reducing diesel PM of mobile source emissions; as a result, increases of SO2 and VOC from emissions by 85 percent by 2020. California has directed its source Through engine retrofits and 28 retirement strategy towards mobile Examples of local air district rules replacements, ARB predicts these implementing the SMG are as follows: Sacramento sources. California has pursued the control measures will reduce NOX Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District Rule 501—Agricultural Burning (49 FR 47490 (December emissions as well as diesel PM 27 For a complete listing of local California air 5, 1984)); adopted in 1992 and amended since, emissions. (CHRP, Section 4.2.3, page district rules within the federally enforceable SIP, SJVAPCD Rule 4103—Open Burning (74 FR 57907 4–6) The CRHP states that this program please see our online database at http:// (November 10, 2009)); SJVAPCD Rule 4106— has already provided visibility benefits www.epa.gov/region9/air/sips/index.html. This Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction (67 FR database is organized first by state and then local 8894 (February 27, 2002)); and, Northern Sierra Air as shown by elemental carbon trends at agency. The rules are listed by number, title, Quality Management District Regulation 3—Open IMPROVE monitors. In 2013 and 2018, adoption date, and the date the rule was approved Burning (62 FR 48480 (September 16, 1997) and 64 the state predicts more visibility into the SIP. FR 45170 (August 19, 1999)).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13960 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

stationary and area sources are offset by find that California has met the must describe in its SIP how it significant reductions in emissions from requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). addressed any comments provided by mobile sources. Table 2 also shows that the FLMs and include procedures for H. Monitoring Strategy the reductions in NOX statewide are continuing consultation between the attributable to a decrease in emissions According to the CRHP, California state and FLMs on program from mobile sources of over 530,000 intends to rely on the IMPROVE implementation. In the future, FLMs tons per year. Therefore, the monitoring program to collect and must have the opportunity for enforceability of mobile source report data for reasonable progress consultation with the state on the measures is a critical consideration tracking for all Class I Areas in the state. development and review of plan when evaluating the measures necessary Because the RHR requires a long-term revisions and five-year progress reports to achieve the reasonable progress goals. tracking program over a 60-year as well as on the implementation of California’s mobile source measures implementation period, the CRHP states other programs that might contribute to fall within two categories: Measures for that California expects the configuration visibility impairment in Class I areas. which the state has obtained or has of the monitors, sampling site locations, The CRHP states that California has applied to obtain a waiver of federal laboratory analysis methods and data provided a list of ARB contacts to the pre-emption under CAA section 209 quality assurance, and network FLMs, as required by the RHR. In (section 209 waiver measure or waiver operation protocols will not change; or, November 2006, ARB sponsored a measure) and those for which the state if they are changed, any future ‘‘Regional Haze Teach-In,’’ with is not required to obtain a waiver (non- IMPROVE program will remain participants from several federal waiver measures). comparable to the one operating during agencies (the U.S. Forest Service, the EPA’s position on the creditability of the 2000–2004 RHR baseline period. National Park Service, the Bureau of California’s mobile source control Through 2018, the CRHP does not Land Management, the U.S. Fish and measures in SIP attainment specify any additional monitors beyond Wildlife Service, the EPA), and demonstrations has been addressed in the existing IMPROVE network. Also, interested air districts. ARB staff previous actions. See EPA’s proposed California will continue to meet the presented and discussed the state’s approval and final approval of the SJV requirement to coordinate its CRHP proposed 2018 Progress Strategy and 1–Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, monitoring with its monitoring for RAVI RPGs. (CRHP, page 8–5) Subsequently, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, by participating in the IMPROVE an ARB/Federal Land Managers 10424 (March 8, 2010). monitoring network. Finally, California Regional Haze Steering Committee EPA recently evaluated California plans to use data reported by the (Steering Committee) was formed. The mobile source measures as part of our IMPROVE program as part of the participants conducted monthly November 10, 2010 proposed action on regional technical support analysis tools conferences to review progress on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 plan found at the Visibility Information regional haze planning and to obtain and the San Joaquin Valley portions of Exchange Web System (VIEWS), as well input from FLMs. California’s RPGs the revised 2007 state strategy. See, e.g., as other analysis tools and efforts were also discussed during these calls. 75 FR 74517 (Nov. 10, 2010). In taking sponsored by the WRAP. (CRHP, page (CRHP, page 8–5) this action, we described how EPA had 9–1) Prior to the January 22, 2009 ARB either approved California’s mobile To conclude, California has submitted adoption hearing, ARB provided the source rules into the SIP, or granted a a monitoring strategy for measuring, FLMs with a draft of the CRHP and waiver of federal pre-emption under characterizing and reporting on regional requested comment. ARB also provided CAA section 209. haze visibility impairment in the state’s a webcast workshop on December 15, Based on this analysis, EPA proposes Class I areas. The state will depend on 2008 to allow participation by federal to find that the measures in the CRHP the IMPROVE monitoring program to land management agency field office are sufficient to achieve the reasonable collect and report data for tracking staff in remote locations. (CRHP, page progress goals, as required by 40 CFR reasonable progress, as specified in the 8–6) Appendix F of the CRHP includes 51.308(d)(3). RHR for all Class I areas in the state. The the FLMs’ official comments, along with To conclude, California has submitted state will use data reported by the responses prepared by ARB. a long-term strategy addressing visibility IMPROVE program and the regional The CRHP states that California will impairment due to regional haze within analysis tools found at the VIEWS. continue to coordinate and consult with Class I areas, both inside and outside of Consequently, we propose to find that the FLMs over the course of the the state. Through participation in the the state has met the requirements of implementation period. California WRAP, California consulted with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). intends to use three existing neighboring states and coordinated its coordination mechanisms for this 2018 Progress Strategy, as well as I. Federal Land Manager Consultation purpose: the Interagency Air and Smoke developed and documented the and Coordination Council, the Air and Land Managers technical basis for the 2018 Progress The RHR requires states to coordinate Group, and the WRAP. (CRHP, page Strategy. Within the 2018 Progress the development and implementation of 8–7) Strategy, the state has considered and their visibility protection programs with To conclude, beginning in November addressed measures to mitigate the the Federal Land Managers (FLMs). In 2006, California provided numerous and impacts of construction activities, particular, states must provide FLMs an regular opportunities for FLM review of source retirement and replacement opportunity for consultation at least the CRHP as it was developed. Prior to schedules, and smoke management for sixty days prior to holding any public ARB adoption of the CRHP on January agricultural and forestry practices. The hearing on the SIP. Consultation must 22, 2009, ARB provided a 60-day state has estimated the 2002 base year include the opportunity for the FLMs to comment period for FLMs and a formal and 2018 anthropogenic and natural discuss their assessment of visibility public comment period beginning source emissions inventory and the impairment in any Class I areas, and December 5, 2008, and a video- emission reductions resulting from the offer recommendations on the conferencing forum to solicit FLM 2018 Progress Strategy’s control development of RPGs and strategies to comment on the final draft CRHP. FLM measures. Consequently, we propose to address visibility impairment. A state comments and ARB responses were

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13961

included with the CRHP in Appendix F. V. EPA’s Analysis of How California’s a broad range of emission control In the future, the state will consult and Regional Haze Plan Meets Interstate measures included in the 2018 Progress coordinate regional haze activities with Transport Requirements Strategy. See sections IV.C and IV.G.5 FLMs through three existing venues: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIP above for a discussion of these The Interagency Air and Smoke revision to contain ‘‘adequate provisions emissions inventories and control Council, the Air and Land Managers * * * prohibiting * * * any source or measures. As part of the WRAP’s Group, and the WRAP. Consequently, other types of emission activity within regional consultative process, California we propose to find that the state has met the State from emitting any air pollutant provided the WRAP with these the FLM coordination and consultation in amounts which will * * * interfere emissions inventories for the WRAP’s requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i). with measures required to be included regional 2018 future year modeling. The WRAP projected visibility levels for all in the applicable implementation plan J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Class I areas in California and for any other State * * * to protect Progress Reports neighboring states based on California’s visibility.’’ EPA is proposing to find that projected 2018 emissions inventories the SIP submitted by California to The CRHP states that California will and the 2018 inventories supplied by address regional haze contains adequate perform a mid-course review in 2013 to other WRAP states. Each of the WRAP provisions to meet the ‘‘good neighbor’’ assess progress towards reaching the states then developed its regional haze provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) RPGs. California’s mid-course review plan using these visibility projections. will consider post-2004 control with respect to visibility. As a result, California’s 2018 Progress measures that were not included in the As an initial matter, EPA notes that Strategy and projected emissions 2018 Progress Strategy. The CRHP states section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not inventories, including the control that the mid-course review will also do specify explicitly how EPA should measures upon which they rely, were the following: ‘‘Update natural ascertain whether a state’s SIP contains accounted for in the WRAP’s adequate provisions to prevent conditions to reflect new information, if apportionment of emission reduction emissions from sources in that state available; update the RPGs with latest obligations among the member states. from interfering with measures required WRAP modeling, if appropriate; re- Each of the WRAP states then developed in another state to protect visibility. evaluate the RPGs to determine if they their respective reasonable progress Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its should be adjusted to better reflect goals based upon an understanding that face, and EPA must interpret this achievable improvements in visibility, California’s implementation of the provision. emission control measures included in as future control measures are adopted Our 2006 Guidance recommended and implemented; compare the actual the 2018 Progress Strategy would that a state could meet the visibility achieve California’s projected 2018 deciview calculations against progress prong of the transport requirements for towards reaching the RPGs and the emissions inventory levels. Thus, the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submitting following elements of the CRHP ensure uniform rate of progress; assess the a regional haze SIP, due in December impact at the monitors from BART- that emissions from California will not 2007. EPA’s reasoning was that the interfere with the reasonable progress specific and post-2004 adopted and development of the regional haze SIPs implemented measures; and, evaluate goals for neighboring states’ Class I was intended to occur in a collaborative areas: Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), the adequacy of the existing CRHP environment among the states, and that chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress elements.’’ (CRHP, Section 9.3, page through this process states would Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation). 9–2) coordinate on emissions controls to We propose to determine that these In 2018, California will revise the protect visibility on an interstate basis. elements of the CRHP adequately CRHP, following procedures for In fact, in developing their respective address California’s apportionment of coordination with other western states reasonable progress goals, WRAP states emission reduction obligations agreed and FLMs. California intends for the consulted with each other through the upon through the WRAP consultative 2018 CRHP revision to include the WRAP’s work groups. As a result of this process and, therefore, satisfy the following updates: ‘‘Current calculation process, the common understanding requirement in CAA section methodologies for visibility; evaluation was that each state would take action to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding measures of the appropriateness of natural achieve the emissions reductions relied required in other states to protect condition levels and updates, if upon by other states in their reasonable visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and appropriate; current visibility progress demonstrations under the RHR. PM2.5 NAAQS. This interpretation is consistent with conditions for most impaired and least VI. EPA’s Proposed Action impaired days; progress towards natural the RHR requirement that a state conditions; effectiveness of California’s participating in a regional planning Because EPA believes the California 2018 Progress Strategy; affirmation or process must include ‘‘all measures Regional Haze Plan fulfills all the revision of reasonable progress goals; needed to achieve its apportionment of relevant requirements of Section 169B and the Regional Haze Rule, we are updated emission inventories; and, re- emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.’’ 40 CFR proposing to fully approve the plan as evaluation of the monitoring strategy.’’ 51.308(d)(3)(ii). described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. (CRHP, Section 9.4, pages 9–2 to 9–3) As discussed above in sections IV.F In sum, we are proposing to find that To conclude, California has submitted and IV.G of this proposed rule, as a California has met the following a plan with commitments to provide a WRAP member, California developed Regional Haze Rule requirements: The 2013 progress report evaluating the the 2018 Progress Strategy in state has established baseline visibility January 22, 2009 CRHP and RPGs, as consultation with 13 other WRAP states conditions and reasonable progress well as a 2018 regional haze plan to address regional haze visibility goals for each of its Class I areas; the revision. Consequently, we propose to impairment in Class I areas affected by state has developed a long-term strategy find that the state has met the California emissions. California also with enforceable measures ensuring requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) and developed a set of emissions inventories reasonable progress towards meeting the (g). reflecting the state’s implementation of Reasonable Progress Goals for the first

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 13962 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ten-year planning period, through 2018; • Is not a significant regulatory action parallel processing. The proposed SIP the state has addressed adequately the subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR revision modifies South Carolina’s New application of Best Available Retrofit 28355, May 22, 2001); Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Technology to specific stationary • Is not subject to requirements of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and sources; the state has an adequate Section 12(d) of the National Nonattainment New Source Review regional haze monitoring strategy; the Technology Transfer and Advancement (NNSR) programs. The proposed state has provided for consultation and Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because revision makes two changes for which coordination with federal land managers application of those requirements would EPA is proposing approval in today’s in producing its regional haze plan; and, be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; rulemaking. First, the revision provided for the regional haze plan’s and incorporates NSR provisions for fine • future revisions. Does not provide EPA with the particulate matter (also known as PM2.5) In addition, we are proposing to discretionary authority to address as amended in EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5 approve California’s 2007 Transport SIP disproportionate human health or Implementation Rule (hereafter referred and the following specific elements of environmental effects with practical, to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’) into the the CRHP as satisfying the CAA Section appropriate, and legally permissible South Carolina SIP. Second, the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to methods under Executive Order 12898 proposed revision addresses a PSD prohibit emissions that will interfere (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). permitting requirement promulgated in with measures to protect visibility in In addition, this rule does not have the 1997 8–Hour Ozone National another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone tribal implications as specified by Ambient Air Quality Standards and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: Chapter 3 Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, (NAAQS) Implementation Rule NSR (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 November 9, 2000), because the SIP is Update Phase II (hereafter referred to as (California 2018 Progress Strategy), and, not approved to apply in Indian country the ‘‘Ozone Implementation NSR Update chapter 8 (Consultation). located in the State, and EPA notes that or Phase II Rule’’). Both changes in the proposed SIP revision are necessary to VII. Statutory and Executive Order it will not impose substantial direct comply with federal regulations related Reviews costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. to South Carolina’s NSR permitting Under the Clean Air Act, the program. EPA is proposing approval of Administrator is required to approve a List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 the December 2, 2010, proposed SIP SIP submission that complies with the Environmental protection, Air revision because the Agency has provisions of the Act and applicable pollution control, Intergovernmental preliminarily determined that the Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate revisions are in accordance with the 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP matter, Reporting and recordkeeping Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA submissions, EPA’s role is to approve requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, regulations regarding NSR permitting. State choices, provided that they meet Volatile organic compounds. DATES: Comments must be received on the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. or before April 14, 2011. Accordingly, this action merely ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, approves State law as meeting Federal Dated: March 9, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– requirements and does not impose OAR–2010–0958 by one of the following Regional Administrator, Region IX. additional requirements beyond those methods: imposed by State law. For that reason, [FR Doc. 2011–6003 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow this action: BILLING CODE 6560–50–P the on-line instructions for submitting • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory comments. action’’ subject to review by the Office 2. E-mail: [email protected]. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION of Management and Budget under 3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. AGENCY Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0958, October 4, 1993); 40 CFR Part 52 Regulatory Development Section, Air • Does not impose an information Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and collection burden under the provisions [EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0958–201104; FRL– Toxics Management Division, U.S. of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 9280–7] Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Approval and Promulgation of • Is certified as not having a Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Implementation Plans; South Carolina: significant economic impact on a 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Prevention of Significant Deterioration substantial number of small entities Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory and Nonattainment New Source under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Development Section, Air Planning Review; Fine Particulate Matter and (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Nitrogen Oxides as a Precursor to • Does not contain any unfunded Management Division, U.S. Ozone mandate or significantly or uniquely Environmental Protection Agency, affect small governments, as described AGENCY: Environmental Protection Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Agency (EPA). Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); ACTION: Proposed rule. deliveries are only accepted during the • Does not have Federalism Regional Office’s normal hours of implications as specified in Executive SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve operation. The Regional Office’s official Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, a revision to the South Carolina State hours of business are Monday through 1999); Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal • Is not an economically significant by the State of South Carolina, through holidays. regulatory action based on health or the South Carolina Department of Instructions: Direct your comments to safety risks subject to Executive Order Health and Environmental Control (SC Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); DHEC), to EPA on December 2, 2010, for 0958.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:13 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP1.SGM 15MRP1 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS