11858 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of practicable and permitted by law, to Resources, Division of Air Quality Children From Environmental Health make environmental justice part of their (NCDAQ), on December 17, 2007, that Risks and Safety Risks mission by identifying and addressing, addresses regional haze for the first The EPA interprets Executive Order as appropriate, disproportionately high implementation period. This revision 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as and adverse human health or addresses the requirements of the Clean applying only to those regulatory environmental effects of their programs, Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that actions that concern health or safety policies, and activities on minority require states to prevent any future and risks, such that the analysis required populations and low-income remedy any existing anthropogenic under section 5–501 of the Executive populations in the United States. impairment of visibility in mandatory Order has the potential to influence the The EPA lacks the discretionary Class I areas (national parks and regulation. This proposed action is not authority to address environmental wilderness areas) caused by emissions subject to Executive Order 13045 justice in this proposed action. In of air pollutants from numerous sources because it is not an economically reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s located over a wide geographic area significant regulatory action based on role is to approve or disapprove state (also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze health or safety risks subject to choices, based on the criteria of the program’’). States are required to assure Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, CAA. Accordingly, this action merely reasonable progress toward the national April 23, 1997). This proposed action proposes to approve or disapprove goal of achieving natural visibility under section 110 and subchapter I, part certain State requirements for inclusion conditions in Class I areas. EPA is D of the CAA will not in and of itself into the SIP under section 110 and proposing a limited approval of this SIP create any new regulations but simply subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will revision to implement the regional haze approves or disapproves certain State not in and of itself create any new requirements for North Carolina on the requirements for inclusion into the SIP. requirements. Accordingly, it does not basis that the revision, as a whole, provide the EPA with the discretionary strengthens the North Carolina SIP. In a H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That authority to address, as appropriate, separate action, EPA has proposed a Significantly Affect Energy Supply, disproportionate human health or limited disapproval of the North Distribution or Use environmental effects, using practicable Carolina regional haze SIP because of This proposed action is not subject to and legally permissible methods, under deficiencies in the State’s regional haze Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, Executive Order 12898. SIP submittal arising from the remand May 22, 2001) because it is not a by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 significant regulatory action under District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) Executive Order 12866. Environmental protection, Air to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule I. National Technology Transfer and pollution control, Intergovernmental (CAIR). Consequently, EPA is not Advancement Act relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, proposing to take action in this Particulate matter, Reporting and rulemaking to address the State’s Section 12(d) of the National recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur reliance on CAIR to meet certain Technology Transfer and Advancement dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport regional haze requirements. Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law of pollution, Regional haze, Best DATES: Comments must be received on 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 available control technology. note) directs the EPA to use voluntary or before March 29, 2012. consensus standards in its regulatory Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, activities unless to do so would be Dated: February 15, 2012. identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– inconsistent with applicable law or Al Armendariz, OAR–2010–0219, by one of the otherwise impractical. Voluntary Regional Administrator, Region 6. following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the consensus standards are technical [FR Doc. 2012–4676 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] on-line instructions for submitting standards (e.g., materials specifications, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P test methods, sampling procedures, and comments. business practices) that are developed or 2. Email: [email protected]. adopted by voluntary consensus ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0219, standards bodies. The NTTAA directs AGENCY the EPA to provide Congress, through Regulatory Development Section, Air OMB, explanations when the Agency 40 CFR Part 52 Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and decides not to use available and Toxics Management Division, U.S. [EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0219–201148; FRL– Environmental Protection Agency, applicable voluntary consensus 9639–2] standards. Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., The EPA believes that this proposed Approval and Promulgation of Air Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. action is not subject to requirements of Quality Implementation Plans; State of 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Section 12(d) of the NTTAA because North Carolina; Regional Haze State Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory application of those requirements would Implementation Plan Development Section, Air Planning be inconsistent with the CAA. Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics AGENCY: Environmental Protection Management Division, U.S. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Agency (EPA). Environmental Protection Agency, Actions To Address Environmental ACTION: Proposed rule. Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Justice in Minority Populations and Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such Low-Income Populations SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited deliveries are only accepted during the Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, approval of a revision to the North Regional Office’s normal hours of February 16, 1994) establishes federal Carolina state implementation plan operation. The Regional Office’s official executive policy on environmental (SIP) submitted by the State of North hours of business are Monday through justice. Its main provision directs Carolina through the North Carolina Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal federal agencies, to the greatest extent Department of Environment and Natural holidays.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11859

Instructions: Direct your comments to Office’s official hours of business are 7. RPGs Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 0219.’’ EPA’s policy is that all excluding federal holidays. Haze Requirements comments received will be included in E. Monitoring Strategy and Other FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Implementation Plan Requirements the public docket without change and Waterson or Michele Notarianni, F. Consultation With States and FLMs may be made available online at Regulatory Development Section, Air 1. Consultation With Other States www.regulations.gov, including any Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 2. Consultation With the FLMs personal information provided, unless Toxics Management Division, U.S. G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year the comment includes information Environmental Protection Agency, Progress Reports claimed to be Confidential Business Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., V. What action is EPA proposing? Information (CBI) or other information Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Waterson can be reached at telephone I. What action is EPA proposing? Do not submit through number (404) 562–9061 and by www.regulations.gov or email, electronic mail at EPA is proposing a limited approval information that you consider to be CBI [email protected]. Michele of North Carolina’s December 17, 2007, or otherwise protected. The Notarianni can be reached at telephone SIP revision addressing regional haze www.regulations.gov Web site is an number (404) 562–9031 and by under CAA sections 301(a) and ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which electronic mail at 110(k)(3) because the revision as a means EPA will not know your identity [email protected]. whole strengthens the North Carolina or contact information unless you SIP. This proposed rulemaking and the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: provide it in the body of your comment. accompanying Technical Support If you send an email comment directly Table of Contents Document 1 (TSD) explain the basis for to EPA without going through I. What action is EPA proposing? EPA’s proposed limited approval 2 www.regulations.gov, your email II. What is the background for EPA’s action. address will be automatically captured proposed action? In a separate action, EPA has and included as part of the comment A. The Regional Haze Problem proposed a limited disapproval of the that is placed in the public docket and B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s North Carolina regional haze SIP made available on the Internet. If you Regional Haze Rule (RHR) because of deficiencies in the State’s submit an electronic comment, EPA C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing regional haze SIP submittal arising from recommends that you include your Regional Haze the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet III. What are the requirements for the regional certain regional haze requirements. See name and other contact information in haze SIPs? the body of your comment and with any A. The CAA and the RHR 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and is not proposing to take action in today’s cannot read your comment due to Current Visibility Conditions rulemaking on issues associated with technical difficulties and cannot contact C. Determination of Reasonable Progress North Carolina’s reliance on CAIR in its you for clarification, EPA may not be Goals (RPGs) regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA’s able to consider your comment. D. Best Available Retrofit Technology proposed limited disapproval of North Electronic files should avoid the use of (BART) Carolina’s regional haze SIP are E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) special characters, any form of accepted at the docket for EPA’s F. Coordinating Regional Haze and December 30, 2011, proposed encryption, and be free of any defects or Reasonably Attributable Visibility viruses. For additional information Impairment (RAVI) LTS rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA– about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA G. Monitoring Strategy and Other HQ–OAR–2011–0729). The comment Docket Center homepage at http:// Implementation Plan Requirements period for EPA’s December 30, 2011, www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. H. Consultation With States and Federal proposed rulemaking is scheduled to Docket: All documents in the Land Managers (FLMs) end on February 28, 2012. IV. What is EPA’s analysis of North electronic docket are listed in the Carolina’s regional haze submittal? II. What is the background for EPA’s www.regulations.gov index. Although A. Affected Class I Areas proposed action? listed in the index, some information is B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and A. The Regional Haze Problem not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other Current Visibility Conditions information whose disclosure is 1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Regional haze is visibility impairment restricted by statute. Certain other 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions that is produced by a multitude of material, such as copyrighted material, 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural sources and activities which are located is not placed on the Internet and will be Conditions across a broad geographic area and emit 4. Uniform Rate of Progress publicly available only in hard copy fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies form. Publicly available docket 1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 1 materials are available either Federal and State Control Requirements EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled ‘‘Technical electronically in www.regulations.gov or Support Document for North Carolina Regional 2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Haze SIP Submittal,’’ is included in the public in hard copy at the Regulatory Determine Visibility Improvement for docket for this action. Development Section, Air Planning Uniform Rate of Progress 2 Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 3. Relative Contributions to Visibility EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval Management Division, U.S. Impairment: Pollutants, Source results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even Categories, and Geographic Areas of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA Environmental Protection Agency, from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable Progress Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA Controls in North Carolina and Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, requests that if at all possible, you Surrounding Areas FOR OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional contact the person listed in the 5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to the Reasonable Progress Analysis Memorandum) located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ schedule your inspection. The Regional 6. BART caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11860 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental CAA establishes as a national goal the the effect of emissions from one carbon, and soil dust), and their ‘‘prevention of any future, and the jurisdiction on the air quality in precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), remedying of any existing, impairment another. nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some of visibility in mandatory Class I areas Because the pollutants that lead to cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile which impairment results from regional haze can originate from sources organic compounds (VOC)). Fine manmade air pollution.’’ On December located across broad geographic areas, particle precursors react in the 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to EPA has encouraged the states and atmosphere to form fine particulate address visibility impairment in Class I tribes across the United States to matter which impairs visibility by areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to address visibility impairment from a scattering and absorbing light. Visibility a single source or small group of regional perspective. Five regional impairment reduces the clarity, color, sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable planning organizations (RPOs) were and visible distance that one can see. visibility impairment.’’ See 45 FR developed to address regional haze and PM2.5 can also cause serious health 80084. These regulations represented related issues. The RPOs first evaluated effects and mortality in humans and the first phase in addressing visibility technical information to better contributes to environmental effects impairment. EPA deferred action on understand how their states and tribes such as acid deposition and regional haze that emanates from a impact Class I areas across the country, eutrophication. variety of sources until monitoring, and then pursued the development of Data from the existing visibility modeling and scientific knowledge regional strategies to reduce emissions monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency about the relationships between of particulate matter (PM) and other Monitoring of Protected Visual pollutants and visibility impairment pollutants leading to regional haze. Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring were improved. The Visibility Improvement State and network, show that visibility Congress added section 169B to the Tribal Association of the Southeast impairment caused by air pollution CAA in 1990 to address regional haze (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of occurs virtually all the time at most issues. EPA promulgated a rule to state governments, tribal governments, national park and wilderness areas. The address regional haze on July 1, 1999 and various federal agencies established average visual range 3 in many Class I (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR to initiate and coordinate activities areas 4 (i.e., national parks and memorial revised the existing visibility associated with the management of parks, wilderness areas, and regulations to integrate into the regional haze, visibility and other air international parks meeting certain size regulation provisions addressing quality issues in the Southeastern criteria) in the western United States is regional haze impairment and United States. Member state and tribal 100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to established a comprehensive visibility governments include: Alabama, Florida, two-thirds of the visual range that protection program for Class I areas. The Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North would exist without anthropogenic air requirements for regional haze, found at Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, pollution. In most of the eastern Class 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern I areas of the United States, the average in EPA’s visibility protection Band of the Cherokee Indians. visual range is less than 30 kilometers, regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some or about one-fifth of the visual range of the main elements of the regional III. What are the requirements for that would exist under estimated haze requirements are summarized in regional haze SIPs? natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 section III of this preamble. The A. The CAA and the RHR (July 1, 1999). requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District Regional haze SIPs must assure B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5 40 reasonable progress towards the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit national goal of achieving natural In section 169A of the 1977 the first implementation plan visibility conditions in Class I areas. Amendments to the CAA, Congress addressing regional haze visibility Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s created a program for protecting impairment no later than December 17, implementing regulations require states visibility in the nation’s national parks 2007. to establish long-term strategies for and wilderness areas. This section of the making reasonable progress toward C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing meeting this goal. Implementation plans 3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in Regional Haze must also give specific attention to kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be Successful implementation of the certain stationary sources that were in viewed against the sky. regional haze program will require long- 4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas existence on August 7, 1977, but were consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, term regional coordination among not in operation before August 7, 1962, wilderness areas and national memorial parks states, tribal governments and various and require these sources, where exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks federal agencies. As noted above, appropriate, to install BART controls for that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of pollution affecting the air quality in the purpose of eliminating or reducing the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department Class I areas can be transported over visibility impairment. The specific of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where long distances, even hundreds of regional haze SIP requirements are visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 kilometers. Therefore, to effectively FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a discussed in further detail below. address the problem of visibility mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 impairment in Class I areas, states need U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may to develop strategies in coordination and Current Visibility Conditions designate as Class I additional areas which they with one another, taking into account The RHR establishes the deciview as consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth the principal metric or unit for in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 5 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico expressing visibility. This visibility ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely metric expresses uniform changes in Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of haziness in terms of common ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section increments across the entire range of it means a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 74–2–4). visibility conditions, from pristine to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11861

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility B–03–005 located at http:// compliance; (3) the energy and non-air expressed in deciviews is determined by www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ quality environmental impacts of using air quality measurements to rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter compliance; and (4) the remaining estimate light extinction and then referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural useful life of any potentially affected transforming the value of light Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for sources. States must demonstrate in extinction using a logarithm function. Tracking Progress Under the Regional their SIPs how these factors are The deciview is a more useful measure Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ considered when selecting the RPGs for for tracking progress in improving B–03–004 located at http:// the best and worst days for each visibility than light extinction itself www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ applicable Class I area. States have because each deciview change is an rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred considerable flexibility in how they take equal incremental change in visibility to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress these factors into consideration, as perceived by the human eye. Most Guidance’’). noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting people can detect a change in visibility For the first regional haze SIPs that Reasonable Progress Goals Under the at one deciview.6 were due by December 17, 2007, Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s The deciview is used in expressing ‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, RPGs (which are interim visibility goals starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 2007, memorandum from William L. towards meeting the national visibility visibility impairment. Baseline visibility Wehrum, Acting Assistant goal), defining baseline, current, and conditions represent the degree of Administrator for Air and Radiation, to natural conditions, and tracking changes visibility impairment for the 20 percent EPA Regional Administrators, EPA in visibility. The regional haze SIPs least impaired days and 20 percent most Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting must contain measures that ensure impaired days for each calendar year the RPGs, states must also consider the ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring rate of progress needed to reach natural national goal of preventing and data for 2000 through 2004, states are visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to remedying visibility impairment in required to calculate the average degree as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the Class I areas caused by anthropogenic of visibility impairment for each Class I ‘‘glidepath’’) and the emissions air pollution by reducing anthropogenic area, based on the average of annual reduction measures needed to achieve emissions that cause regional haze. The values over the five-year period. The that rate of progress over the 10-year national goal is a return to natural comparison of initial baseline visibility period of the SIP. Uniform progress conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources conditions to natural visibility towards achievement of natural of air pollution would no longer impair conditions indicates the amount of conditions by the year 2064 represents visibility in Class I areas. improvement necessary to attain natural a rate of progress which states are to use To track changes in visibility over visibility, while the future comparison for analytical comparison to the amount time at each of the 156 Class I areas of baseline conditions to the then of progress they expect to achieve. In covered by the visibility program (40 current conditions will indicate the setting RPGs, each state with one or CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the amount of progress made. In general, the more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must process for determining reasonable 2000–2004 baseline period is also consult with potentially progress, states must calculate the considered the time from which ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby degree of existing visibility impairment improvement in visibility is measured. states with emissions sources that may at each Class I area at the time of each C. Determination of Reasonable Progress be affecting visibility impairment at the regional haze SIP submittal and Goals (RPGs) Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR periodically review progress every five 51.308(d)(1)(iv). years midway through each 10-year The vehicle for ensuring continuing D. Best Available Retrofit Technology implementation period. To do this, the progress towards achieving the natural (BART) RHR requires states to determine the visibility goal is the submission of a degree of impairment (in deciviews) for series of regional haze SIPs from the Section 169A of the CAA directs the average of the 20 percent least states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two states to evaluate the use of retrofit impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and controls at certain larger, often impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class uncontrolled, older stationary sources in a specified time period at each of their I area for each (approximately) 10-year order to address visibility impacts from Class I areas. In addition, states must implementation period. The RHR does these sources. Specifically, section also develop an estimate of natural not mandate specific milestones or rates 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states visibility conditions for the purpose of of progress, but instead calls for states to revise their SIPs to contain such comparing progress toward the national to establish goals that provide for measures as may be necessary to make goal. Natural visibility is determined by ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving reasonable progress towards the natural estimating the natural concentrations of natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility visibility goal, including a requirement pollutants that cause visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must that certain categories of existing major impairment and then calculating total provide for an improvement in visibility stationary sources 7 built between 1962 light extinction based on those for the most impaired days over the and 1977 procure, install, and operate estimates. EPA has provided guidance (approximately) 10-year period of the the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit to states regarding how to calculate SIP, and ensure no degradation in Technology’’ as determined by the state. baseline, natural and current visibility visibility for the least impaired days Under the RHR, states are directed to conditions in documents titled, EPA’s over the same period. conduct BART determinations for such States have significant discretion in Guidance for Estimating Natural ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be establishing RPGs, but are required to Visibility conditions under the Regional anticipated to cause or contribute to any consider the following factors Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ visibility impairment in a Class I area. established in section 169A of the CAA Rather than requiring source-specific 6 The preamble to the RHR provides additional and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially (July 1, 1999). compliance; (2) the time necessary for subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11862 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

BART controls, states also have the pollution control technology in use at revise the RHR to allow states to flexibility to adopt an emissions trading the source, (4) the remaining useful life substitute participation in the trading program or other alternative program as of the source, and (5) the degree of programs under the Transport Rule for long as the alternative provides greater improvement in visibility which may source-specific BART. EPA has not yet reasonable progress towards improving reasonably be anticipated to result from taken final action on that rule. Also on visibility than BART. the use of such technology. States are December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit On July 6, 2005, EPA published the free to determine the weight and issued an order addressing the status of Guidelines for BART Determinations significance to be assigned to each the Transport Rule and CAIR in Under the Regional Haze Rule at factor. response to motions filed by numerous Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 A regional haze SIP must include parties seeking a stay of the Transport (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART source-specific BART emission limits Rule pending judicial review. In that Guidelines’’) to assist states in and compliance schedules for each order, the DC Circuit stayed the determining which of their sources source subject to BART. Once a state has Transport Rule pending the court’s should be subject to the BART made its BART determination, the resolutions of the petitions for review of requirements and in determining BART controls must be installed and in that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. appropriate emissions limits for each operation as expeditiously as v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated applicable source. In making a BART practicable, but no later than five years cases). The court also indicated that determination for a fossil fuel-fired after the date of EPA approval of the EPA is expected to continue to electric generating plant with a total regional haze SIP. See CAA section administer CAIR in the interim until the generating capacity in excess of 750 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In court rules on the petitions for review megawatts (MW), a state must use the addition to what is required by the RHR, of the Transport Rule. approach set forth in the BART general SIP requirements mandate that Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but the SIP must also include all regulatory E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) not required, to follow the BART requirements related to monitoring, Consistent with the requirement in Guidelines in making BART recordkeeping, and reporting for the section 169A(b) of the CAA that states determinations for other types of BART controls on the source. include in their regional haze SIP a 10 sources. As noted above, the RHR allows states to 15 year strategy for making States must address all visibility- to implement an alternative program in reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) impairing pollutants emitted by a source lieu of BART so long as the alternative of the RHR requires that states include in the BART determination process. The program can be demonstrated to achieve a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The most significant visibility impairing greater reasonable progress toward the LTS is the compilation of all control pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA national visibility goal than would measures a state will use during the has stated that states should use their BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 implementation period of the specific best judgment in determining whether revising the regional haze program, EPA SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. VOC or NH3 compounds impair made just such a demonstration for The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable visibility in Class I areas. CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). emissions limitations, compliance Under the BART Guidelines, states EPA’s regulations provide that states schedules, and other measures as may select an exemption threshold participating in the CAIR cap-and trade necessary to achieve the reasonable value for their BART modeling, below program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant progress goals’’ for all Class I areas which a BART-eligible source would to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which within, or affected by emissions from, not be expected to cause or contribute remain subject to the CAIR Federal the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). to visibility impairment in any Class I Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 When a state’s emissions are area. The state must document this need not require affected BART-eligible reasonably anticipated to cause or exemption threshold value in the SIP electrical generating (EGUs) to install, contribute to visibility impairment in a and must state the basis for its selection operate, and maintain BART for Class I area located in another state, the of that value. Any source with emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR RHR requires the impacted state to emissions that model above the 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not coordinate with the contributing states threshold value would be subject to a address direct emissions of PM, states in order to develop coordinated BART determination review. The BART were still required to conduct a BART emissions management strategies. See Guidelines acknowledge varying analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, circumstances affecting different Class I subject to BART for that pollutant. the contributing state must demonstrate areas. States should consider the Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted that it has included, in its SIP, all number of emission sources affecting in the remand of the rule to EPA. See measures necessary to obtain its share of the Class I areas at issue and the North Carolina v. EPA, 550F.3d 1175 the emissions reductions needed to magnitude of the individual sources’ (DC Cir. 2008). meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The impacts. Any exemption threshold set EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to RPOs have provided forums for by the state should not be higher than address the interstate transport of NOX significant interstate consultation, but 0.5 deciview. and SO2 in the eastern United States. additional consultations between states In their SIPs, states must identify See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the may be required to sufficiently address potential BART sources, described as Transport Rule,’’ also known as the interstate visibility issues. This is ‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On especially true where two states belong and document their BART control December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to to different RPOs. determination analyses. In making find that the trading programs in the States should consider all types of BART determinations, section Transport Rule would achieve greater anthropogenic sources of visibility 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that reasonable progress towards the impairment in developing their LTS, states consider the following factors: (1) national goal than would BART in the including stationary, minor, mobile, and The costs of compliance, (2) the energy states in which the Transport Rule area sources. At a minimum, states must and non-air quality environmental applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this describe how each of the following impacts of compliance, (3) any existing proposed finding, EPA also proposed to seven factors listed below are taken into

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11863

account in developing their LTS: (1) regional haze SIP, and it must be public hearing on the SIP. This Emissions reductions due to ongoing air reviewed every five years. The consultation must include the pollution control programs, including monitoring strategy must also provide opportunity for the FLMs to discuss measures to address RAVI; (2) measures for additional monitoring sites if the their assessment of impairment of to mitigate the impacts of construction IMPROVE network is not sufficient to visibility in any Class I area and to offer activities; (3) emissions limitations and determine whether RPGs will be met. recommendations on the development schedules for compliance to achieve the The SIP must also provide for the of the RPGs and on the development RPG; (4) source retirement and following: and implementation of strategies to replacement schedules; (5) smoke • Procedures for using monitoring address visibility impairment. Further, a management techniques for agricultural data and other information in a state state must include in its SIP a and forestry management purposes with mandatory Class I areas to description of how it addressed any including plans as currently exist determine the contribution of emissions comments provided by the FLMs. within the state for these purposes; (6) from within the state to regional haze Finally, a SIP must provide procedures enforceability of emissions limitations visibility impairment at Class I areas for continuing consultation between the and control measures; and (7) the both within and outside the state; state and FLMs regarding the state’s anticipated net effect on visibility due to • Procedures for using monitoring visibility protection program, including projected changes in point, area, and data and other information in a state development and review of SIP mobile source emissions over the period with no mandatory Class I areas to revisions, five-year progress reports, and addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR determine the contribution of emissions the implementation of other programs 51.308(d)(3)(v). from within the state to regional haze having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas in impairment of visibility in Class I areas. F. Coordinating Regional Haze and other states; Reasonably Attributable Visibility • Reporting of all visibility IV. What is EPA’s analysis of North Impairment (RAVI) LTS monitoring data to the Administrator at Carolina’s regional haze submittal? As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 least annually for each Class I area in On December 17, 2007, NCDAQ CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for the state, and where possible, in submitted revisions to the North RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must electronic format; Carolina SIP to address regional haze in provide for a periodic review and SIP • Developing a statewide inventory of the State’s Class I areas as required by revision not less frequently than every emissions of pollutants that are EPA’s RHR. three years until the date of submission reasonably anticipated to cause or A. Affected Class I Areas of the state’s first plan addressing contribute to visibility impairment in regional haze visibility impairment, any Class I area. The inventory must North Carolina has five Class I areas which was due December 17, 2007, in include emissions for a baseline year, within its borders: Great Smoky accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and emissions for the most recent year for Mountains National Park, Joyce Kilmer- (c). On or before this date, the state must which data are available, and estimates Slickrock Wilderness Area, Linville revise its plan to provide for review and of future projected emissions. A state Gorge Wilderness Area, Shining Rock revision of a coordinated LTS for must also make a commitment to update Wilderness Area, and Swanquarter addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the inventory periodically; and Wilderness Area. Two of these Class I the state must submit the first such • Other elements, including areas (Great Smoky Mountains and coordinated LTS with its first regional reporting, recordkeeping, and other Joyce Kilmer) also fall within the haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and measures necessary to assess and report geographic boundaries of Tennessee. periodic progress reports evaluating on visibility. Therefore, both North Carolina and progress towards RPGs, must be The RHR requires control strategies to Tennessee are responsible for submitted consistent with the schedule cover an initial implementation period developing their own regional haze SIPs for SIP submission and periodic extending to the year 2018, with a that address these two Class I areas and progress reports set forth in 40 CFR comprehensive reassessment and for consulting with other states that 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. revision of those strategies, as impact the areas. The two states worked The periodic review of a state’s LTS appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. together to determine appropriate RPGs, must report on both regional haze and Periodic SIP revisions must meet the including consulting with other states RAVI impairment and must be core requirements of section 51.308(d) that impact these two Class I areas, as submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. with the exception of BART. The discussed in section IV.F.1 of this requirement to evaluate sources for rulemaking. In addition, both North G. Monitoring Strategy and Other BART applies only to the first regional Carolina and Tennessee are responsible Implementation Plan Requirements haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART for describing their own long-term Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR must continue to comply with the BART emissions strategies, their role in the includes the requirement for a provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted consultation processes, and how their monitoring strategy for measuring, above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure particular state SIP meets the other characterizing, and reporting of regional that the statutory requirement of requirements in EPA’s regional haze haze visibility impairment that is reasonable progress will continue to be regulations. representative of all mandatory Class I met. The North Carolina regional haze SIP areas within the state. The strategy must establishes RPGs for visibility be coordinated with the monitoring H. Consultation With States and Federal improvement at each of these Class I strategy required in section 51.305 for Land Managers (FLMs) areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs RAVI. Compliance with this The RHR requires that states consult within the first regional haze requirement may be met through with FLMs before adopting and implementation period ending in 2018. ‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR In developing the LTS for each area, network, i.e., review and use of 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an North Carolina considered both monitoring data from the network. The opportunity for consultation, in person emissions sources inside and outside of monitoring strategy is due with the first and at least 60 days prior to holding any North Carolina that may cause or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11864 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

contribute to visibility impairment in Steering Committee in December 2005.8 monitor at Great Smoky Mountains North Carolina’s Class I areas. The State The purpose of this refinement to the National Park for the Joyce Kilmer- also identified and considered ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide Slickrock Wilderness Area. The emissions sources within North more accurate estimates of the various IMPROVE Steering Committee considers Carolina that may cause or contribute to factors that affect the calculation of light the IMPROVE monitor at the Great visibility impairment in Class I areas in extinction. North Carolina opted to use Smoky Mountains to be representative neighboring states as required by 40 the default estimates for the natural of visibility in Joyce Kilmer. The Great CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO concentrations combined with the ‘‘new Smoky Mountains National Park is the worked with the State in developing the IMPROVE equation’’ for all of its Class nearest Class I area and contiguous to technical analyses used to make these I areas. Using this approach, natural Joyce Kilmer and they possess similar determinations, including state-by-state visibility conditions using the new characteristics, such as meteorology and contributions to visibility impairment in IMPROVE equation were calculated topography. specific Class I areas, which included separately for each Class I area by As explained in section III.B, for the the five areas in North Carolina and VISTAS. first regional haze SIP, baseline The new IMPROVE equation takes those areas affected by emissions from visibility conditions are the same as into account the most recent review of North Carolina. current conditions. A five-year average the science 9 and it accounts for the of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, effect of particle size distribution on calculated for each of the 20 percent and Current Visibility Conditions light extinction efficiency of sulfate, worst and 20 percent best visibility days As required by the RHR and in nitrate, and organic carbon. It also at each North Carolina Class I area. accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural adjusts the mass multiplier for organic IMPROVE data records for Great Smoky Visibility Guidance, North Carolina carbon (particulate organic matter) by calculated baseline/current and natural increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms Mountains National Park and the visibility conditions for each of its Class are added to the equation to account for Linville Gorge Wilderness Area for the I areas, as summarized below (and as light extinction by sea salt and light period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA further described in sections III.B.1 and absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. requirements for data completeness. See III.B.2 of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Site-specific values are used for page 2–8 of EPA’s 2003 Tracking Register action). Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light Progress Guidance. Shining Rock and due to atmospheric gases) to account for Swanquarter Class I areas had missing 1. Estimating Natural Visibility the site-specific effects of elevation and data in more than one year between the Conditions temperature. Separate relative humidity years 2000 to 2004. Data records for Natural background visibility, as enhancement factors are used for small these sites were filled using data defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility and large size distributions of substitution procedures. Tables 3.3–1, Guidance, is estimated by calculating ammonium sulfate and ammonium 3.3–2, 3.3–3, and 3.3–4 from Appendix the expected light extinction using nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the G of the North Carolina regional haze default estimates of natural remaining contributors, elemental SIP, also provided in section III.B.3 of concentrations of fine particle carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine EPA’s TSD to this action, list the 20 components adjusted by site-specific soil, and coarse mass terms, do not percent best and worst days for the estimates of humidity. This calculation change between the original and new baseline period of 2000–2004 for the uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a IMPROVE equations. Great Smoky Mountains, Linville Gorge, formula for estimating light extinction Shining Rock, and Swanquarter areas, from the estimated natural 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions respectively. These data are also concentrations of fine particle NCDAQ estimated baseline visibility provided at the following Web site: components (or from components conditions at the State’s five Class I http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/ measured by the IMPROVE monitors). areas using available monitoring data SesarmBext_20BW.htm. As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural from four IMPROVE monitoring sites. 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states The Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Conditions to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative Area does not contain an IMPROVE approaches to the 2003 EPA guidance to monitor. In cases where onsite For the North Carolina Class I areas, estimate the values that characterize the monitoring is not available, 40 CFR baseline visibility conditions on the 20 natural visibility conditions of the Class 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the percent worst days range between I areas. One alternative approach is to most representative monitoring approximately 24.5 and 30.5 deciviews. develop and justify the use of available for the 2000–2004 period to Natural visibility in these areas is alternative estimates of natural establish baseline visibility conditions, predicted to be between approximately concentrations of fine particle in consultation with EPA. North 11 and 12 deciviews on the 20 percent components. Another alternative is to Carolina used, and EPA is proposing to worst days. The natural and baseline use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that find adequate North Carolina’s use of, conditions for North Carolina’s Class I was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 2000–2004 data from the IMPROVE areas for both the 20 percent worst and

8 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative participant in visibility-related research, including Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort measurement effort governed by a steering the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ committee composed of representatives from analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy improve/publications/GrayLit/ federal agencies (including representatives from formulation and source attribution field studies. 016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 9 The science behind the revised IMPROVE and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid equation is summarized in numerous published Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to the creation of Federal and State implementation papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients—Final the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. chemical species and emissions sources responsible Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency September 2006. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ The IMPROVE program has also been a key (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11865

best days are presented in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR NORTH CAROLINA’S CLASS I AREAS

Average for Average for Class I area 20% worst 20% best days (dv 10) days (dv)

Natural Background Conditions: Great Smoky Mountains National Park ...... 11.05 4.54 Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ...... 11.05 4.54 Linville Gorge Wilderness Area ...... 11.19 4.08 Shining Rock Wilderness Area ...... 11.47 2.51 Swanquarter Wilderness Area ...... 11.55 5.46 Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004): Great Smoky Mountains National Park ...... 30.28 13.58 Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ...... 30.28 13.58 Linville Gorge Wilderness Area ...... 28.77 11.11 Shining Rock Wilderness Area ...... 28.46 7.69 Swanquarter Wilderness Area ...... 24.74 11.99

4. Uniform Rate of Progress visibility improvement necessary to State from the end of the baseline period In setting the RPGs, North Carolina reach natural conditions is the starting in 2004 until 2018. The North considered the uniform rate of progress difference between baseline visibility of Carolina LTS was developed by the needed to reach natural visibility 30.28 deciviews for the 20 percent worst State, in coordination with the VISTAS conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and days and natural conditions of 11.05 RPO, through an evaluation of the the emissions reduction measures deciviews, i.e., 19.23 deciviews. Over following components: (1) Identification needed to achieve that rate of progress the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, of the emissions units within North over the period of the SIP to meet the this would require an approximate Carolina and in surrounding states that requirements of 40 CFR improvement of 0.321 deciview per year likely have the largest impacts currently 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in (i.e., 19.23 deciviews/60 years) to reach on visibility at the State’s Class I areas; EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance natural conditions. Hence, for the 14- (2) estimation of emissions reductions document, the uniform rate of progress year period from 2004 to 2018, in order for 2018 based on all controls required to achieve visibility improvement at is not a presumptive target, and RPGs or expected under federal and state least equivalent to the uniform rate of may be greater than, less than, or regulations for the 2004–2018 period progress for the 20 percent worst days equivalent to the glidepath. (including BART); (3) comparison of The State’s implementation plan at the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce Kilmer areas, North Carolina would projected visibility improvement with presents two sets of graphs, one for the the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 need to project at least 4.49 deciviews over the first implementation period State’s Class I areas; and (4) application percent worst days, for its five Class I of the four statutory factors in the areas. North Carolina constructed the (i.e., 0.321 deciview x 14 years = 4.49 reasonable progress analysis for the graph for the worst days (i.e., the deciviews) of visibility improvement identified emissions units to determine glidepath) in accordance with EPA’s from the 30.28 deciviews baseline in 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or if additional reasonable controls were plotting a straight graphical line from below 25.79 deciviews in 2018. As required. the baseline level of visibility discussed below in section IV.C.7, for In a separate action proposing limited impairment for 2000–2004 to the level the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of of visibility conditions representing no Kilmer areas, North Carolina projects a a number of states, EPA noted that these anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for 6.78 deciview improvement to visibility states relied on the trading programs of its areas. For the best days, the graph from the 30.28 deciview baseline to CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement includes a horizontal, straight line 23.50 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 and the requirement for a LTS sufficient spanning from baseline conditions in percent most impaired days, and a 1.47 to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See deciview improvement to 12.11 2004 out to 2018 to depict no 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In deciviews from the baseline visibility of degradation in visibility over the that action, EPA proposed a limited implementation period of the SIP. North 13.58 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days. Similar computations disapproval of North Carolina’s regional Carolina’s SIP shows that the State’s haze SIP submittal insofar as the SIP RPGs for its areas provide for can be made for the other three North Carolina Class I areas. relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is improvement in visibility for the 20 not taking action on that aspect of North percent worst days over the period of C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies Carolina’s regional haze SIP in this the implementation plan and ensure no action. Comments on the December 30, degradation in visibility for the 20 As described in section III.E of this 2011, proposed determination are percent best days over the same period, action, the LTS is a compilation of state- in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). specific control measures relied on by a accepted at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– For the Great Smoky Mountain and state for achieving its RPGs. North OAR–2011–0729. The comment period Joyce Kilmer Class I areas, the overall Carolina’s LTS for the first for EPA’s December 30, 2011, proposed implementation period addresses the rulemaking is scheduled to end on 10 The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for emissions reductions from federal, state, February 28, 2012. ‘‘deciview.’’ and local controls that take effect in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11866 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With move but does not use roadways); and combustion turbine and reciprocating Federal and State Control Requirements (c) biogenic sources (which are natural internal combustion engines MACTs, The emissions inventory used in the sources of emissions, such as trees). On- and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year regional haze technical analyses was road mobile source emissions are MACT standards. developed by VISTAS with assistance estimated by vehicle type and road type, Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. from North Carolina. The 2018 and are summed to the countywide Circuit mandated the vacatur and emissions inventory was developed by level. remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT There are many federal and state projecting 2002 emissions and applying Rule.11 This MACT was vacated since it reductions expected from federal and control programs being implemented that VISTAS and North Carolina was directly affected by the vacatur and state regulations affecting the emissions remand of the Commercial and of VOC and the visibility-impairing anticipate will reduce emissions between the end of the baseline period Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new BART Guidelines direct states to and 2018. Emissions reductions from these control programs are projected to Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address exercise judgment in deciding whether the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR VOC and NH impair visibility in their achieve substantial visibility 3 improvement by 2018 in the North 32006) and issued a final rule on March Class I area(s). As discussed further in 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The VISTAS section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed Carolina Class I areas. The control programs relied upon by North Carolina modeling included emissions modeling sensitivity analyses, which reductions from the vacated Industrial demonstrated that anthropogenic include CAIR; EPA’s NOX SIP Call; North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks Act Boiler MACT rule, and North Carolina emissions of VOC and NH3 do not (CSA); Georgia Rule 391–3–1– did not redo its modeling analysis when significantly impair visibility in the the rule was re-issued. Even though VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions .02(2)(sss), ‘‘Multipollutant Control for Electric Utility Steam Generating North Carolina’s modeling is based on inventories were also developed for NH3 Units;’’ consent decrees for Tampa the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and VOC, and applicable federal VOC limits, the State’s modeling conclusions reductions were incorporated into North Electric, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, and are unlikely to be affected because the Carolina’s regional haze analyses, North expected reductions due to the vacated Carolina did not further evaluate NH3 American Electric Power; NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules rule were relatively small compared to and VOC emissions sources for potential the State’s total SO , PM , and coarse controls under BART or reasonable in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, 2 2.5 Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; particulate matter (PM10) emissions in progress. 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.4 percent, depending VISTAS developed emissions for five North Carolina’s NOX Reasonably on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 inventory source classifications: Available Control Technology state rule SO , PM , and PM inventory). Thus, stationary point and area sources, off- for Philip Morris USA and Norandal 2 2.5 10 road and on-road mobile sources, and USA in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock EPA does not expect that differences biogenic sources. Stationary point Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment between the vacated and final Industrial sources are those sources that emit area; federal 2007 heavy duty diesel Boiler MACT emissions limits would greater than a specified tonnage per engine standards for on-road trucks and affect the adequacy of the existing North year, depending on the pollutant, with buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for Carolina regional haze SIP. If there is a data provided at the facility level. on-road vehicles; federal large spark need to address discrepancies between Stationary area sources are those ignition and recreational vehicle projected emissions reductions from the sources whose individual emissions are controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the relatively small, but due to the large rules. Controls from various federal Industrial Boiler MACT issued March number of these sources, the collective Maximum Achievable Control 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects emissions from the source category Technology (MACT) rules were also North Carolina to do so in the State’s could be significant. VISTAS estimated utilized in the development of the 2018 five-year progress report. emissions on a countywide level for the emissions inventory projections. These Below in Tables 2 and 3 are inventory categories of: (a) Stationary MACT rules include the industrial summaries of the 2002 baseline and area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) boiler/process heater MACT (referred to 2018 estimated emissions inventories mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the for North Carolina.

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA [Tons per year]

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ...... 61,484 196,731 26,953 36,539 1,233 522,093 Area ...... 250,044 41,517 83,520 300,838 162,183 5,815 On-Road Mobile ...... 263,766 327,329 4,623 6,579 9,702 12,420 Off-Road Mobile ...... 94,480 84,284 7,348 7,348 65 7,693

Total ...... 669,774 649,861 122,444 351,304 173,183 548,021

11 See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:32 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11867

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR NORTH CAROLINA [Tons per year]

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ...... 71,247 94,276 37,789 48,354 2,073 148,972 Area ...... 203,132 49,514 93,406 338,872 181,333 6,674 On-Road Mobile...... 101,099 87,791 2,123 4,392 14,065 1,481 Off-road Mobile ...... 61,327 49,046 4,069 4,298 83 905

Total ...... 436,805 280,627 137,387 395,916 197,554 158,032

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Selection of a representative period of VISTAS used the model to assess the Determine Visibility Improvement for meteorology is crucial for evaluating 2018 RPGs using the current and future Uniform Rate of Progress baseline air quality conditions and year air quality modeling predictions, VISTAS performed modeling for the projecting future changes in air quality and compared the RPGs to the uniform regional haze LTS for the 10 due to changes in emissions of rate of progress. southeastern states, including North visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS In accordance with 40 CFR Carolina. The modeling analysis is a conducted an in-depth analysis which 51.308(d)(3), the State of North Carolina complex technical evaluation that began resulted in the selection of the entire provided the appropriate supporting with selection of the modeling system. year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as documentation for all required analyses VISTAS used the following modeling the best period of meteorology available used to determine the State’s LTS. The system: for conducting the CMAQ modeling. technical analyses and modeling used to • Meteorological Model: The The VISTAS states modeling was develop the glidepath and to support Pennsylvania State University/National developed consistent with EPA’s the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR Center for Atmospheric Research Guidance on the Use of Models and and interim and final EPA Modeling Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a Other Analyses for Demonstrating Guidance. EPA proposes to accept the nonhydrostatic, prognostic Attainment of Air Quality Goals for VISTAS technical modeling to support meteorological model routinely used for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, the LTS and to determine visibility urban- and regional-scale located at http://www.epa.gov/ improvement for the uniform rate of photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm- progress because the modeling system regulatory modeling studies. rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002), was chosen and simulated according to • Emissions Model: The Sparse April 2007, and EPA document, EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Emissions Inventory Guidance for to concur with the VISTAS model modeling system is an emissions Implementation of Ozone and performance procedures and results, modeling system that generates hourly Particulate Matter National Ambient Air and that the CMAQ is an appropriate gridded speciated emissions inputs of Quality Standards (NAAQS) and tool for the regional haze assessments mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, Regional Haze Regulations, located at for the North Carolina LTS and regional fire and biogenic emissions sources for http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ haze SIP. eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, photochemical grid models. 3. Relative Contributions to Visibility • Air Quality Model: The EPA’s August 2005, updated November 2005 Impairment: Pollutants, Source Models-3/Community Multiscale Air (‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). Categories, and Geographic Areas Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a VISTAS examined the model photochemical grid model capable of performance of the regional modeling An important step toward identifying addressing ozone, PM, visibility and for the areas of interest before reasonable progress measures is to acid deposition at a regional scale. The determining whether the CMAQ model identify the key pollutants contributing photochemical model selected for this results were suitable for use in the to visibility impairment at each Class I study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was regional haze assessment of the LTS and area. To understand the relative benefit modified through VISTAS with a for use in the modeling assessment. The of further reducing emissions from module for Secondary Organics modeling assessment predicts future different pollutants, source sectors, and Aerosols in an open and transparent levels of emissions and visibility geographic areas, VISTAS developed manner that was also subjected to impairment used to support the LTS emissions sensitivity model runs using outside peer review. and to compare predicted, modeled CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air CMAQ modeling of regional haze in visibility levels with those on the quality impacts from various groups of the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 uniform rate of progress. In keeping emissions and pollutant scenarios in the was carried out on a grid of 12x12 with the objective of the CMAQ Class I areas on the 20 percent worst kilometer cells that covers the 10 modeling platform, air quality model visibility days. VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, performance was evaluated using Regarding which pollutants are most Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North graphical and statistical assessments significantly impacting visibility in the Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, based on measured ozone, fine particles, VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution Virginia, West Virginia) and states and acid deposition from various assessment, based on IMPROVE adjacent to them. This grid is nested monitoring networks and databases for monitoring data, demonstrated that within a larger national CMAQ the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a ammonium sulfate is the major modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells diverse set of statistical parameters from contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility that covers the continental United the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress impairment at Class I areas in the States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and examine the model and modeling VISTAS and neighboring states. On the and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 20 percent worst visibility days in Oceans along the east and west coasts. model performance to be acceptable, 2000–2004, ammonium sulfate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11868 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the point (elevated) sources. NCDAQ notes 02D.0540, ‘‘Particulates From Fugitive calculated light extinction at the inland that for Swanquarter, the numerous hog Dust Emission Sources,’’ effective on Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 farms in eastern North Carolina are the September 1, 2007, to control percent of the calculated light extinction likely primary emissions sources for particulates from fugitive dust for all but one of the coastal Class I areas ammonia. emissions sources generated within in the VISTAS states. In particular, The VISTAS sensitivity analyses plant boundaries from activities such as sulfate particles resulting from SO2 show that VOC emissions from biogenic ‘‘unloading and loading areas, process emissions contribute to the calculated sources such as vegetation also areas, stockpiles, stock pile working, light extinction on the haziest days contribute to visibility impairment. plant parking lots, and plant roads roughly 74 percent for the Swanquarter However, control of these biogenic (including access roads and haul area, and 84 to 87 percent for the Great sources of VOC would be extremely roads).’’ The State has chosen not to Smoky Mountains, Linville Gorge, and difficult, if not impossible. The develop controls for fine soils in this Shining Rock areas, depending on the anthropogenic sources of VOC first implementation period because of area. In contrast, ammonium nitrate emissions are minor compared to the their relatively minor contribution to contributed less than five percent of the biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling visibility impairment. calculated light extinction at the anthropogenic sources of VOC With regard to ammonia emissions VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent emissions would have little, if any, from agricultural sources, NCDAQ, as a worst visibility days. Particulate organic visibility benefits at the Class I areas in continuation of the State’s CSA, matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20 the VISTAS region, including North initiated the Climate Action Planning percent or less of the light extinction on Carolina. The sensitivity analyses also Advisory Group to develop options for the 20 percent worst visibility days at show that reducing primary carbon from the reduction of greenhouse gas the VISTAS Class I areas. point sources, ground level sources, or emissions in North Carolina, including VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas fires is projected to have small to no the emissions from agriculture and into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I agricultural waste in North Carolina. ‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as areas. The Group issued a report that supports ‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ North Carolina considered the factors expanded research, regulatory actions, similar characteristics (e.g. terrain, listed under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and and grant guarantees as key geography, meteorology), to better in section III.E. of this action to develop implementation tools to accomplish the represent variations in model sensitivity its LTS as described below. North expanded utilization of methane (a and performance within the VISTAS Carolina, in conjunction with VISTAS, greenhouse gas) from hog/cattle waste region and to describe the common demonstrated in its SIP that elemental for energy. The report also highlights factors influencing visibility conditions carbon (a product of highway and non- improved waste management practices in the two types of Class I areas. All of road diesel engines, agricultural as important. A co-benefit of any North Carolina’s Class I areas, except for burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), resulting measures will be the reduction Swanquarter, are ‘‘inland’’ areas. fine soils (a product of construction of ammonia emissions from animal Swanquarter is considered a ‘‘coastal’’ activities and activities that generate waste. In addition, the North Carolina area. fugitive dust), and ammonia are Legislature approved a bill on July 26, Results from VISTAS’ emissions relatively minor contributors to 2007, that permanently bans new sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate visibility impairment at the Class I areas lagoons at hog farms and orders state particles resulting from SO2 emissions in North Carolina. North Carolina regulators to set environmental are the dominant contributor to considered agricultural and forestry standards for new hog farm waste visibility impairment on the 20 percent smoke management techniques to systems. The new legislation phases-out worst days at all Class I areas in address visibility impacts from the use of waste lagoons by hog farmers, VISTAS. North Carolina concluded that elemental carbon. NCDAQ stated in its replacing them with more reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and SIP that it is working with the North environmentally friendly systems. non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS Carolina Division of Forest Resources to EPA preliminarily concurs with the states would have the greatest visibility develop a smoke management program State’s technical demonstration showing benefits for the North Carolina Class I that utilizes basic smoke management that elemental carbon, fine soils, and areas. practices and addresses the issues laid ammonia are not significant Because ammonium nitrate is a small out in the EPA’s 1998 Interim Air contributors to visibility in the State’s contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility Quality Policy on Wildland and Class I areas, and therefore, proposes to impairment on the 20 percent worst Prescribed Fires available at: http:// find that North Carolina has adequately days at the inland Class I areas in www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s VISTAS, which include all of the North firefnl.pdf. Additionally, NCDAQ is TSD to this Federal Register action and Carolina Class I areas except for the working with the North Carolina North Carolina’s SIP provide more Swanquarter area, the benefits of Department of Agriculture to develop a details on the State’s consideration of reducing NOX and NH3 emissions at Memorandum of Understanding these factors for North Carolina’s LTS. these sites are small. Some of the worst regarding agricultural burning. The emissions sensitivity analyses days at Swanquarter, and other coastal With regard to fine soils, the State conducted by VISTAS predict that sites within the VISTAS region, occur in considered those activities that generate reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU the winter when ammonium nitrate has fugitive dust, including construction and non-EGU industrial point sources a somewhat larger contribution to activities. With regard to construction will result in the greatest improvements visibility impairment. North Carolina activities, the North Carolina in visibility in the Class I areas in the concluded that reducing ammonia Department of Transportation’s Division VISTAS region, more than any other emissions would be more beneficial for of Highways has issued regulations visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific reducing ammonium nitrate addressing control of erosion, siltation, to North Carolina, the VISTAS contributions to visibility impairment in and pollution from construction sensitivity analysis projects visibility wintertime than further reducing NOX activities. In addition, NCDAQ benefits on the 20 percent worst days at emissions from either ground-level or promulgated state rule 15A NCAC the State’s four inland Class I areas from

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11869

SO2 reductions from EGUs in eight of other pollutants as visibility conditions compliance; and (iv) remaining useful the 10 VISTAS states: Alabama, Georgia, change over time. life of the emissions unit. Kentucky, North Carolina, South North Carolina’s SO2 AOI Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To methodology captured greater than 60 Evaluate for Reasonable Progress Virginia. For the Swanquarter area, percent of the total point source SO2 reductions from EGUs in North Carolina Controls in North Carolina and contribution to visibility impairment in and South Carolina would have the Surrounding Areas four of the five Class I areas in North Carolina, and required an evaluation of greatest benefits; the contributions from As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this 21 emissions units at seven facilities in other VISTAS states are comparatively action, through comprehensive North Carolina. At the remaining Class small. Additional, smaller benefits are evaluations by VISTAS and the I area, Swanquarter, the one percent projected for North Carolina’s Class I Southern Appalachian Mountains areas from SO2 emissions reductions 12 threshold represents 47 percent of the Initiative (SAMI), the VISTAS states total point source SO contribution, from non-utility industrial point sources concluded that sulfate particles 2 in the VISTAS states. SO2 emissions while requiring an evaluation of 12 resulting from SO2 emissions account additional units at six facilities in North contributions to visibility impairment for the greatest portion of the regional from other RPO regions are Carolina. The NCDAQ also looked at haze affecting the Class I areas in what sources in North Carolina may be comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states, including those areas in VISTAS states’ contributions, and thus, impacting Class I areas located outside North Carolina. Utility and non-utility of the State, as well as what sources controlling sources outside of the boilers are the main sources of SO VISTAS region is predicted to provide 2 located outside of North Carolina may emissions within the southeastern less significant improvements in be impacting the North Carolina Class I United States. VISTAS developed a visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS. areas. By applying the State’s AOI SO2 methodology for North Carolina that Taking the VISTAS sensitivity methodology, the only North Carolina enables the State to focus its reasonable source that was identified as potentially analyses results into consideration, progress analysis on those geographic North Carolina concluded that reducing impacting visibility in a Class I area regions and source categories that outside the State was the Duke Power- SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU impact visibility at its Class I areas. point sources in certain VISTAS states Dan River facility, which may impact Recognizing that there was neither the James River Face Wilderness Area in would have the greatest visibility sufficient time nor adequate resources benefits for the North Carolina Class I Virginia. To capture a higher percentage available to evaluate all emissions units of emissions units contributing to the areas. The State chose to focus solely on within a given area of influence (AOI) total sulfate visibility impairment would evaluating certain SO sources 2 around each of the Class I areas that involve an evaluation of many more contributing to visibility impairment to North Carolina’s sources impact, the units that have substantially less the State’s Class I areas for additional State established a threshold to impact. emissions reductions for reasonable determine which emissions units would NCDAQ believes that the one percent progress in this first implementation be evaluated for reasonable progress threshold is appropriate given the period (described in sections IV.C.4 and control. In applying this methodology, contribution to the total sulfate visibility IV.C.5 of this action). EPA proposes to NCDAQ first calculated the fractional impairment at each Class I area and the agree with the State’s analyses and contribution to visibility impairment limited resources available to conduct a conclusions used to determine the from all emissions units within the SO2 unit-by-unit evaluation for reasonable pollutants and source categories that AOI for its Class I areas, and from those progress. EPA believes the approach most contribute to visibility impairment units within the SO2 AOIs surrounding developed by VISTAS and implemented in the North Carolina Class I areas, and Class I areas in other states potentially for the Class I areas in North Carolina proposes to find the State’s approach to impacted by emissions from emissions is a reasonable methodology to focus on developing a LTS that includes units in North Carolina. The State then prioritize the most significant largely additional measures for point identified those emissions units with a contributors to regional haze and to sources of SO2 emissions to be contribution of one percent or more to identify sources to assess for reasonable appropriate. the visibility impairment at that progress control. The approach is SO2 sources for which it is particular Class I area, and evaluated consistent with EPA’s Reasonable demonstrated that no additional each of these units for control measures Progress Guidance. The technical controls are reasonable in this current for reasonable progress using the approach of VISTAS and North Carolina implementation period will not be following four ‘‘reasonable progress was objective and based on several exempted from future assessments for factors’’ required under 40 CFR analyses, including the evaluation of a controls in subsequent implementation 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of large universe of emissions units within periods or, when appropriate, from the compliance; (ii) time necessary for and surrounding the State of North five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future compliance; (iii) energy and non-air Carolina and all of the 18 VISTAS Class implementation periods, additional quality environmental impacts of I areas. It also included an analysis of controls on these SO2 sources evaluated the VISTAS emissions units affecting in the first implementation period may 12 Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated nearby Class I areas surrounding the be determined to be reasonable, based in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and VISTAS states that are located in other on a reasonable progress control recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing RPOs’ Class I areas. evaluation, for continued progress and prevent future adverse effects from human- toward natural visibility conditions for induced air pollution on the air quality related 5. Application of the Four CAA Factors values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ in the Reasonable Progress Analysis the 20 percent worst days and to avoid States cooperated with FLMs, EPA, industry, further degradation of the 20 percent environmental organizations, and academia to NCDAQ identified 34 emissions units best days. Similarly, in subsequent complete a technical assessment of the impacts of at 14 facilities in North Carolina (see acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on implementation periods, the State may sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. Table 4) with SO2 emissions that were use different criteria for identifying The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August above the State’s minimum threshold sources for evaluation and may consider 2002. for reasonable progress evaluation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11870 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

because they were modeled to fall were not subject to a reasonable additional controls for SO2 beyond within the SO2 AOI of any Class I area progress analysis because they were CAIR for subject EGUs are reasonable and have a one percent or greater already subject to BART or had shut for this first implementation period. contribution to the sulfate visibility down. In addition, as discussed in NCDAQ evaluated 11 units at five impairment in at least one Class I area.13 section IV.C.5.B, 16 units are subject to facilities. Of these 34 units, seven emissions units CAIR, and NCDAQ concluded that no

TABLE 4—NORTH CAROLINA FACILITIES WITH EMISSIONS UNIT(S) SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS:

Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis Blue Ridge Paper Products—Canton Mill G–24, G–25, G–65, G–66 Cogentrix Kenansville—Gen1 PCS Phosphate Company Inc.—Aurora G–1034, G–1035 Weyerhaeuser Company—New Bern G–42 Weyerhaeuser Company—Plymouth G–140, G–143, G–148 Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis: EGUs Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area: Carolina Power & Light Asheville Steam E1, E2 Duke Energy Corporation—Buck Steam Station G–4, G–5 Duke Energy Corporation—Dan River Station G–21 Duke Energy Corporation—Cliffside Steam G–86, G–87, G–88 Duke Energy Corporation—Marshall Steam G–1, G–2 Duke Energy Corporation—Riverbend Steam G–17, G–19, G–20 L V Sutton Steam Electric Plant G–188 Progress Energy—F Lee Plant G–2, G–3 Emissions Units Subject to BART: Blue Ridge Paper Products—Canton Mill G–26, G–31, G–32 Emissions Units that Shut Down: PCS Phosphate Company Inc.—Aurora G–1032, G–1033 Ecusta Business Development Center LLC—G–28, G–29

A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) identify any cost-effective control 1. Blue Ridge Paper Products Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis measures for the specific sources with Four coal-fired Power Boilers at Blue contributions to Class I areas in North NCDAQ analyzed whether SO2 Ridge Paper Products were evaluated for controls should be required for 11 Carolina or neighboring states. Neither reasonable progress: No. 4 Power Boiler emissions units at five facilities based the time necessary for compliance nor (G–66) with a capacity of 535 million on a consideration of the four factors set the energy and non-air quality British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/ out in the CAA and EPA’s regulations. environmental impacts of compliance hr) and boilers G–24, G–25, and G–65, For the limited purpose of evaluating appear to be out of the ordinary for the each with a capacity of 364–399 the cost of compliance for the control measures identified for these MMBtu/hr. Boilers G–24, G–25, and G– reasonable progress assessment in this facilities. A likely short remaining 65 burn a washed and blended coal first regional haze SIP, NCDAQ believed useful life for two units was noted in from different portions of the coal seam that it was not equitable to require non- one case, but a longer remaining useful at the Apollo mine to meet Blue Ridge EGUs to bear a greater economic burden life would not alter the reasonable Paper’s specifications for heat, ash and than EGUs for a given control strategy. progress determination for those units. sulfur content. Coal from the Apollo The facility-by-facility costs for EGUs North Carolina also noted that, in mine has high heat content, low to under CSA ranged from 912 to 1,922 moderate ash, and low to moderate order to show continued progress past dollars per ton of SO removed ($/ton sulfur, and it averages from 1.4 to 1.5 2 2018, the criteria will likely be different SO2), and the average costs per utility pounds SO2 per million British Thermal system ranged from $1,231 to $1,375/ in the next reasonable progress Units (lbs SO /MMBtu). The assessment in order to maintain 2 ton SO2. These costs were estimated electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) on using the capital costs from the CSA continuous visibility improvement these boilers perform well on this 2006 compliance plans and the toward natural background conditions moderate sulfur coal and test well below projected operating costs provided by by 2064. The facilities in North Carolina applicable PM standards. They are not Duke Energy and Progress Energy. These that have units that contribute at least designed, however, to burn low sulfur costs were used as a guide in one percent to visibility impairment at coal. Ash from low sulfur coal has a determining cost effectiveness. any Class I area in the State, or in higher resistivity than ash from the During the current reasonable neighboring states, were sent letters moderate sulfur coal that Blue Ridge progress assessment, no emissions units from NCDAQ indicating that while no Paper burns in these boilers. The No. 4 in North Carolina were identified for additional controls were identified Power Boiler burns washed, low sulfur additional control since no measures during this reasonable progress coal subject to new source performance were found to be below the cost assessment, these sources will evaluate standards (NSPS) with a sulfur limit of threshold discussed above. NCDAQ did possible SO2 reduction strategies for the 1.2 lbs SO2/MMBtu. not perform an exhaustive review of the next regional haze SIP due July 31, Based on information from the remaining three statutory factors for 2018. company, this lower sulfur coal is $75– reasonable progress since it did not $90/ton SO2, and the other coal used at

13 See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional excerpted from the North Carolina SIP, Appendix contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, H.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11871

the facility is $65/ton SO2. The cost reduce SO2 emissions by only 165 tons MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from difference is $10–25/ton SO2. The per year. This estimate was based on No. 6 fuel oil. company burned 277,214 tons of higher reducing SO2 emissions from 3.8 to 3.5 NCDAQ did not identify any available sulfur coal in 2005; switching to lower lbs SO2/ton of sulfuric acid produced. controls for the Hog Boiler 1 or 2. For sulfur coal would cost approximately The other two scenarios evaluated the Riley Boiler, the only available $2,772,140–$6,930,350 extra per year. If meeting a 2.0 lbs SO2/ton of sulfuric control that NCDAQ identified is a flue 1,400 tons of SO2 were reduced by acid produced limit by either making gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber at a switching from the current higher sulfur operational changes or by modifying the cost of $20,460/ton SO2. Therefore, coal (one percent sulfur or reactor vessel. The operational changes NCDAQ concluded that there are no approximately 1.6 lb SO2/MMBtu) to could be made without significant cost-effective controls for these units at lower sulfur coal (0.75 percent sulfur or capital expenditures but would this time within the cost threshold approximately 1.2 lb SO2/MMBtu) at the significantly reduce production established for this reasonable progress 2005 rate of coal consumption, capacity. Modifying the unit to increase assessment. associated costs would range from the amount of catalyst available 4. Weyerhaeuser—New Bern $1,980–$4,950/ton SO2 with an average required significant capital investment. cost of $3,465/ton SO2. NCDAQ NCDAQ estimated that these options Weyerhaeuser—New Bern has one power boiler which burns residual oil. determined that the cost for add-on would reduce SO2 emissions by 2,073 control technology for these units ranges tons/year with a cost effectiveness of It is fired at 579 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input rate. The only available from $12,055 to $100,961/ton SO2. approximately $11,347/ton of SO2 NCDAQ concluded that there are no reduced for the operational change and control identified by NCDAQ is an FGD cost-effective controls available for these a cost effectiveness of approximately at a cost of $17,317/ton SO2. Therefore, the NCDAQ concluded that there are no units at this time within the cost $12,816 to $13,651/ton SO2 for the unit threshold established for this reasonable modification. NCDAQ also cited cost-effective controls available for this progress assessment. Although NCDAQ modeling analyses which concluded unit at this time within the cost has concluded that there are no cost- that the visibility improvement at the threshold established for this reasonable effective controls for this reasonable Swanquarter Wilderness Area resulting progress assessment. progress period, the State acknowledges from reducing the SO2 emissions rate by 5. Cogentrix Kenansville that the emissions from Blue Ridge 1.0 lb SO /ton sulfuric acid produced 2 The affected emissions unit at Paper Products impact North Carolina’s (i.e., a change in emissions rate from 4.0 Cogentrix Kenansville is Gen1, a 215 inland Class I areas. NCDAQ notified to 3.0 lbs SO /ton sulfuric acid 2 MMBtu/hr heat input mixed fuel-fired the company that although additional produced) would only be 0.16 deciview. EGU capable of burning coal, natural controls are not required during this Therefore, NCDAQ concluded that there gas, No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil, tire-derived implementation period, the State may are no cost-effective controls available fuel, pelletized paper fuel, flyash require the installation and operation of for these units at this time within the briquette, and wood. Although the controls for future implementation cost threshold established for this company retains coal as a permitted fuel periods. NCDAQ is committed to reasonable progress assessment. NCDAQ on the permit, it is currently burning working with this company over the notified the company that although unadulterated wood (pure wood with next review period and encouraging the additional controls are not being up to five percent impurities), and its company to modernize some of its required during this planning period, new business plan is to continue processes with more efficient equipment the State may require the installation burning only wood as part of the ‘‘green with lower emissions. and operation of controls for future- power’’ movement in North Carolina. 2. PCS Phosphate planning periods. The 2005 actual SO2 emissions for Two of the four sulfuric acid units at 3. Weyerhaeuser—Plymouth this unit were 23.25 tons, whereas the PCS Phosphate identified for further projected 2018 SO2 emissions were analysis under reasonable progress Weyerhaeuser—Plymouth has three 1,833.8 tons based on using coal. In the remain in operation (units 1034 and power boilers subject to analysis: Riley final SIP submittal, the NCDAQ stated 1035). On February 7, 2011, NCDAQ No. 1 Combination Boiler, No. 1 Hog that it is sending the company a letter provided a technical supplement to the Fuel Boiler, and No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler. indicating that they are currently on the December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP The Riley No. 1 Combination Boiler list of sources contributing greater than for these units. The two PCS Phosphate burns coal, No. 6 fuel oil, Low Volume one percent to the total sulfate visibility units currently utilize dual absorption High Concentration (LVHC) gases, and impairment at the Swanquarter systems with a vanadium catalyst. The Stripper Off Gas (SOG) gases and is fired Wilderness Area based on the estimated four technologies reviewed included at 624 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input. emissions from burning coal. The SIP sodium bisulfite scrubbing, molecular The No. 1 Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog submittal indicated that the letter will sieve, ammonia scrubbing, and dual fuel (wood waste), No. 6 fuel oil, coal, suggest that the facility change its absorption process with cesium- used oil, sludge, and High Volume Low permit to remove coal as a possible fuel promoted catalyst. Concentration (HVLC) gases. This boiler source for this unit. The first three technologies were is fired at 835 MMBtu/hr maximum heat rejected because they have not been input from hog fuel, 617 MMBtu/hr 6. EPA Assessment commercially demonstrated to reliably maximum heat input from No. 6 fuel oil, As noted in EPA’s Reasonable meet current NSPS and state permit or for combination firing, 701.2 and Progress Guidance, the states have wide limits. The use of cesium-promoted 319.8 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input latitude to determine appropriate catalyst was further evaluated, looking from hog fuel and coal, respectively. additional control requirements for at three scenarios. The first scenario The No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog ensuring reasonable progress, and there evaluated, changing to a cesium- fuel, No. 6 fuel oil, coal, used oil, are many ways for a state to approach promoted catalyst without making other sludge, HVLC, LVHC, and SOG gases. It identification of additional reasonable major capital investments, was is fired at 889 MMBtu/hr maximum heat measures. States must consider, at a estimated to cost $2,879/ton SO2 and input from combined fuels or 800 minimum, the four statutory factors in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11872 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

determining reasonable progress, but modeled to fall within the SO2 AOI of for this implementation period, and states have flexibility in how to take any Class I area and have a one percent thus, it is not requiring any additional these factors into consideration. or greater contribution to the sulfate controls for reasonable progress at this NCDAQ applied the methodology visibility impairment to at least one time. As discussed in EPA’s Reasonable developed by VISTAS for identifying Class I area. North Carolina determined Progress Guidance, since the BART appropriate sources to be considered for that no additional controls for the analysis is based, in part, on an additional controls under reasonable State’s EGUs for SO2 were reasonable assessment of many of the same factors progress for the implementation period during the first implementation period. that must be addressed in establishing ending in 2018 that is addressed by this In reaching this decision, NCDAQ the RPGs, EPA believes that it is SIP. Using this methodology, NCDAQ evaluated the amount of SO2 emissions reasonable to conclude that any control first identified those emissions and reductions from the EGU sector requirements imposed in the BART emissions units most likely to have an expected from the implementation of determination also satisfy the RPG- impact on visibility in the State’s and North Carolina’s CSA and CAIR. The related requirements for source review neighboring Class I areas. Units with EGUs in North Carolina are expected to in the first implementation period.14 emissions of SO2 with a relative reduce their SO2 emissions by greater Thus, EPA proposes to concur with the contribution to visibility impairment of than 80 percent between 2002 and 2018. State’s conclusions that BART satisfies at least a one percent contribution at Additionally, NCDAQ considered the reasonable progress for the first any Class I area were then subject to a four reasonable progress factors set forth implementation period for these three reasonable progress control analysis in EPA’s RHR as they apply to the emissions units at Blue Ridge Paper. except for utilities subject to CAIR. State’s entire EGU sector in sections 7.7 2. Other Units Exempted from Preparing After reviewing NCDAQ’s and 7.8 of the North Carolina SIP. In a Reasonable Progress Control Analysis methodology and analyses and the particular, the State took into account record prepared by NCDAQ, EPA the factors of cost and time necessary for NCDAQ did not evaluate the two proposes to find North Carolina’s compliance in view of EPA’s analysis emissions units at Ecusta Business conclusion that no further controls are supporting CAIR. Development Center since they ceased necessary at this time acceptable. EPA Based on this analysis, NCDAQ operation prior to the regional haze SIP proposes to find that North Carolina concluded that the emissions reductions submittal date. Two of the four units at adequately evaluated the control required by CAIR constitute reasonable PCS Phosphate in Aurora that were technologies available at the time of its measures for North Carolina EGUs identified for assessment for reasonable analysis and applicable to this type of during this first assessment period. This progress have since permanently ceased facility and consistently applied its conclusion is bolstered by the fact that, operation and therefore were not criteria for reasonable compliance costs. as discussed in section IV.C.7, visibility evaluated further. The State also included appropriate improvement at the State’s Class I areas documentation in its SIP of the is projected to exceed the uniform rate 6. BART technical analysis it used to assess the of progress in this first implementation BART is an element of North need for and implementation of period. NCDAQ intends to re-evaluate reasonable progress controls. Although Carolina’s LTS for the first EPA’s Integrated Planning Model (IPM) implementation period. The BART the use of a specific threshold for predictions of SO emissions reductions assessing costs means that a state may 2 evaluation process consists of three for CAIR at the time of the next periodic not fully consider available emissions components: (a) An identification of all progress report to ensure that the reduction measures above its threshold the BART-eligible sources, (b) an reductions are in fact taking place where that would result in meaningful assessment of whether the BART- they were predicted. Based on the visibility improvement, EPA believes eligible sources are subject to BART and controls required by CSA, and predicted that the North Carolina SIP still ensures (c) a determination of the BART by IPM under CAIR, NCDAQ has reasonable progress. In proposing to controls. These components, as concluded that, at this time, these approve North Carolina’s reasonable addressed by NCDAQ and NCDAQ’s existing regulatory programs constitute progress analysis, EPA is placing great findings, are discussed as follows. reasonable control measures for these 16 weight on the fact that there is no EGUs during the first implementation A. BART-Eligible Sources indication in the SIP submittal that period (between the baseline and 2018). North Carolina, as a result of using a The first phase of a BART evaluation EPA proposes a limited approval of specific cost effectiveness threshold, is to identify all the BART-eligible North Carolina’s methodology and rejected potential reasonable progress sources within the State’s boundaries. determination that no additional measures that would have had a NCDAQ identified the BART-eligible controls beyond CAIR and CSA are meaningful impact on visibility in its sources in North Carolina by utilizing reasonable for SO for affected North Class I areas. EPA notes that given the 2 the three eligibility criteria in the BART Carolina EGUs for the first emissions reductions resulting from Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s implementation period. CAIR and the measures in nearby states, regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or the visibility improvements projected C. Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not more emissions units at the facility fit for the affected Class I areas are in Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions excess of that needed to be on the 1. Non-EGUs Subject to BART uniform rate of progress. units were not in operation prior to Three emissions units at Blue Ridge August 7, 1962, and were in existence B. Facilities With Emissions Units Paper that met the State’s minimum on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any threshold for a reasonable progress have the potential to emit 250 tons or Class I Area control evaluation are emissions units more per year of any visibility-impairing NCDAQ identified 16 EGUs at eight that NCDAQ also found to be subject to pollutant. facilities which met the State’s BART. NCDAQ concluded that the minimum threshold for reasonable application of BART constitutes 14 EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages progress evaluation because they were reasonable progress for these three units 4.2–4–3.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11873

The BART Guidelines also direct or contribute to impairment of visibility to BART. NCDAQ concluded that, states to address SO2, NOX, and direct in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to considering the results of the visibility PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) BART.’’ EPA believes that CALPUFF is impacts modeling conducted, a 0.5 emissions as visibility-impairment the best regulatory modeling application deciview threshold was appropriate in pollutants and to exercise judgment in currently available for predicting a this situation and a lower threshold was determining whether VOC or ammonia single source’s contribution to visibility not warranted for the following reasons. emissions from a source impair impairment (70 FR 39162). North The State demonstrated that there are a visibility in a Class I area. See 70 FR Carolina, in coordination with VISTAS, limited number of in and out of state 39160. VISTAS modeling demonstrated used the CALPUFF modeling system to sources that impact the Class I areas in that VOC from anthropogenic sources determine whether individual sources the State, and that there are a limited and ammonia from point sources, in North Carolina were subject to BART. number of sources in close proximity to except for potentially one ammonia The BART Guidelines also each of the affected Class I areas. source, are not significant visibility- recommend that states develop a Additionally, the majority of the impairing pollutants in North Carolina, modeling protocol for making visibility impacts were well below 0.5 as discussed in section IV.C.3 of this individual source attributions and deciview. Also, even though several action. Based on the VISTAS modeling, suggest that states may want to consult sources impacted each Class I area, the NCDAQ has determined that ammonia with EPA and their RPO to address any overall impacts were low from the emissions from the State’s point sources issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS sources. EPA is proposing to agree with are not anticipated to cause or states, including North Carolina, North Carolina that the overall impacts contribute significantly to any developed a ‘‘Protocol for the of these sources are not sufficient to impairment of visibility in Class I areas Application of CALPUFF for BART warrant a lower contribution threshold and should be exempt for BART Analyses.’’ Stakeholders, including and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was purposes. No ammonia source in North EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade appropriate in this instance. Carolina was identified by VISTAS as a groups, and other interested parties, 3. Identification of Sources Subject to possible contributor to visibility actively participated in the development BART impairment. and review of the VISTAS protocol. VISTAS developed a post-processing North Carolina identified 17 facilities B. BART-Subject Sources approach to use the new IMPROVE with BART-eligible sources. All of The second phase of the BART equation with the CALPUFF model North Carolina’s 17 BART-eligible evaluation is to identify those BART- results so that the BART analyses could sources were required by the State to eligible sources that may reasonably be consider the old and new IMPROVE submit exemption-modeling anticipated to cause or contribute to equations. North Carolina’s justification demonstrations. North Carolina found visibility impairment at any Class I area, included a method to process the that two of its BART-eligible sources i.e., those sources that are subject to CALPUFF output and a rationale on the (Blue Ridge Paper and PCS Phosphate) BART. The BART Guidelines allow benefits of using the new IMPROVE had modeled visibility impacts of more states to consider exempting some equation. than the State’s 0.5 deciview threshold. BART-eligible sources from further Therefore, these two facilities are 2. Contribution Threshold BART review because they may not subject to BART and submitted State reasonably be anticipated to cause or For states using modeling to permit applications including their contribute to any visibility impairment determine the applicability of BART to proposed BART determinations. PCS in a Class I area. Consistent with the single sources, the BART Guidelines Phosphate subsequently shut down its BART Guidelines, North Carolina note that the first step is to set a two sulfuric acid units subject to BART required each of its BART-eligible contribution threshold to assess whether and these units were not further sources to develop and submit the impact of a single source is evaluated. dispersion modeling to assess the extent sufficient to cause or contribute to The 15 remaining sources were able to of their contribution to visibility visibility impairment at a Class I area. demonstrate that they are not subject to impairment at Class I areas in The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a] BART by modeling less than a 0.5 surrounding states. single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview visibility impact at the deciview change or more should be affected Class I areas. This modeling 1. Modeling Methodology considered to ‘cause’ visibility involved emissions of NOX, SO2, and The BART Guidelines allow states to impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines PM10 as applicable to individual use the CALPUFF 15 modeling system also state that ‘‘the appropriate facilities. (CALPUFF) or another appropriate threshold for determining whether a Six of North Carolina’s BART-eligible model to predict the visibility impacts source ‘contributes to visibility sources are facilities with EGUs that are from a single source on a Class I area impairment’ may reasonably differ subject to CAIR. As noted above, the and therefore, to determine whether an across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general RHR allows states to implement an individual source is anticipated to cause matter, any threshold that you use for alternative program in lieu of BART so determining whether a source long as the alternative program can be 15 Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF ‘contributes’ to visibility impairment demonstrated to achieve greater encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, reasonable progress toward the national which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and should not be higher than 0.5 CALPOST models and other pre and post deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that visibility goal than would BART. Under processors. The different versions of CALPUFF states are free to use a lower threshold regulations issued in 2005 revising the have corresponding versions of CALMET, if they conclude that the location of a regional haze program, EPA made just CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer large number of BART-eligible sources such a demonstration for CAIR. See 70 version of CALMET may not be compatible with an in proximity of a Class I area justifies FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s older version of CALPUFF). The different versions this approach. regulations provide that states of the CALPUFF modeling system are available North Carolina used a contribution participating in the CAIR cap-and trade from the model developer on the following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ threshold of 0.5 deciview for program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant download.htm. determining which sources are subject to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11874 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

remain subject to the CAIR Federal states were still required to conduct a EGUs demonstrated that their PM Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 BART analysis for PM emissions from emissions do not contribute to visibility need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. impairment in any Class I area. Table 5 EGUs to install, operate, and maintain Thus, North Carolina’s EGUs were identifies the 17 BART-eligible sources BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. allowed to submit BART exemption located in North Carolina. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR modeling demonstrations for PM did not address direct emissions of PM, emissions only. All of the BART-eligible

TABLE 5—NORTH CAROLINA BART—ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART: Blue Ridge Paper Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART: EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources 16: Duke Energy—Belews Creek Steam Station Duke Energy—Cliffside Steam Station Duke Energy—Marshall Steam Station Progress Energy—Asheville Plant Progress Energy—Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Progress Energy—Sutton Plant Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt: Alcoa, Inc.-Badin Works DAK Americas—Cape Fear DAK Americas—Cedar Creek Elementis Chromium International Paper—Riegelwood Mill International Paper—Roanoke Rapids Invista, S.A.R.L. Weyerhaeuser Company—Plymouth Weyerhaeuser Company—New Bern Shut Down: PCS Phosphate

Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s whether these constituted the best the ESP was identified as technically reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for controls currently available, then feasible; however, it was not considered NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs identified what other technically economically feasible and would result was fully approvable and in accordance feasible controls are available, and in only a marginal visibility with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the finally, evaluated the technically improvement at one Class I area (Great BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for feasible controls using the five BART Smoky Mountains) and degradation in NOX and SO2 and other provisions in statutory factors. The State’s evaluations visibility at another (Shining Rock). this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, Therefore, the State determined that a separate action, EPA has proposed a are summarized below. The units retrofit controls are not warranted as limited disapproval of the North subject to the BART requirements at BART for SO2 emissions from the Carolina regional haze SIP because of Blue Ridge Paper include the two recovery furnaces. deficiencies in the State’s regional haze recovery furnaces, their associated smelt The smelt dissolving tanks emit PM, SIP submittal arising from the remand dissolving tanks, and the black liquor SO2, and NOX. No NOX controls are by the D.C. Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See oxidation system (BLOX). NCDAQ available for this source type. For PM 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not concluded that BART for all of these and SO2, the number of technically taking action in this proposed emissions sources is the existing feasible controls is limited due to the rulemaking to address the State’s emissions control systems currently in fact that the emissions are minimal and reliance on CAIR to meet certain place. of low velocity. Although several regional haze requirements. The recovery furnaces emit PM, SO2, options were evaluated, they would C. BART Determination and NOX. For the recovery furnaces, only minimally reduce the number of The five BART-eligible units at Blue potential retrofit control technologies days above 0.5 deciview at Shining Ridge Paper modeled visibility impacts for PM emissions were not further Rock and Great Smoky Mountains, and of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold evaluated since the units are already NCDAQ believes that the installation of and are therefore subject to BART. equipped with the most stringent retrofit controls on the smelt dissolving Consequently, Blue Ridge Paper controls and since the operation of these tanks as BART is not economically submitted to the State a permit controls is required by the facility’s title feasible (in excess of $13,000/ton for less than 44 tons/year of particulate application that included their proposed V operating permit. For NOX, several BART determination. potential control alternatives were reduction). In accordance with the BART evaluated; however, NCDAQ believes The BLOX system emits PM, SO2 and Guidelines, to determine the level of that the installation of NOX reduction NOX. Blue Ridge is complying with control that represents BART for each controls for the recovery furnaces is not MACT Subpart S through alternative source, the State first reviewed existing economically feasible. For SO2, requirements approved by the EPA controls on these units to assess installation of a wet scrubber following under an equivalency by permit

16 EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. SO2 and NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were North Carolina relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for not analyzed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11875

approach. Under these alternative the period 2004–2018 and additional submittal vs 12.11 deciviews in the requirements, Blue Ridge is controlling control measures which the VISTAS Tennessee submittal.) NCDAQ the BLOX system to achieve a greater states planned to implement in the first explained that the differences are due to level of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) implementation period. At the time of different modeling runs used by each reduction by controlling emissions from VISTAS modeling, some of the other state. At the time of SIP development, the BLOX system in a new Regenerative states with sources potentially only the earlier version of the VISTAS Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) equipped with impacting visibility at the North modeling run was available to NCDAQ. a wet scrubber for SO2 control. Proper Carolina Class I areas had not yet made NCDAQ acknowledges that the RPGs in operation of the RTO and combustion of final control determinations for BART the Tennessee regional haze SIP natural gas as auxiliary fuel minimize and/or reasonable progress, and thus, represent the most current information PM and NOX emissions. these controls were not included in the and commits to revise the RPGs for Because the unit is already equipped modeling submitted by North Carolina. Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce with the most stringent controls as Any controls resulting from those Kilmer in the periodic progress report required by the MACT standards, and determinations will provide additional SIP. In accordance with this letter of permit limits are in place to ensure emissions reductions and resulting clarification, Table 6 below reflects the these controls are operated properly, the visibility improvement, which give updated RPGs of 12.11 (approximated to NCDAQ has determined that BART for further assurances that North Carolina 12.1) and 23.50 for both the best and the BLOX is existing controls. will achieve its RPGs. This modeling worst days, respectively, for these two EPA proposes to agree with North demonstrates that the 2018 base control Class I areas. Carolina’s analyses and conclusions for scenario provides for an improvement the BART emissions units located at the in visibility better than the uniform rate As shown in Table 6 below, North Blue Ridge Paper facility. EPA has of progress for both of the North Carolina’s RPGs for the 20 percent worst reviewed the North Carolina analyses Carolina Class I areas for the most days provide greater visibility and proposes to conclude that they were impaired days over the period of the improvement by 2018 than the uniform conducted in a manner that is consistent implementation plan and ensures no rate of progress for the State’s Class I with EPA’s BART Guidelines and EPA’s degradation in visibility for the least areas. Also, the RPGs for the 20 percent Air Pollution Control Cost Manual impaired days over the same period. best days provide greater visibility (http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/ On February 16, 2010, NCDAQ sent a improvement by 2018 than current best products.html#cccinfo). Therefore, the letter to EPA Region 4 clarifying the day conditions. The regional haze conclusions reflect a reasonable reason for the differences in the RPGs provisions specify that a state may not application of EPA’s guidance to these for Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce adopt a RPG that represents less sources. Kilmer presented in the North Carolina visibility improvement than is expected and Tennessee regional haze SIP to result from other CAA requirements 7. RPGs submittals. For the 20 percent worst during the implementation period. 40 The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) days, the April 4, 2008, Tennessee CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the requires states to establish RPGs for submittal used 23.50 deciviews while CAIR states with Class I areas, like each Class I area within the state the North Carolina submittal states the North Carolina, took into account (expressed in deciviews) that provide RPG as 23.7 (or 23.66) deciviews. emissions reductions anticipated from for reasonable progress towards (Similarly, for the 20 percent best days, CAIR in determining their 2018 RPGs.17 achieving natural visibility. VISTAS the RPG differences between the two The modeling supporting the analysis of modeled visibility improvements under states’ submittals were 12.2 (or 12.15) these RPGs is consistent with EPA existing federal and state regulations for deciviews in the North Carolina guidance at the time.

TABLE 6—NORTH CAROLINA 2018 RPGS [In deciviews]

2018 RPG— Uniform rate 2018 RPG— Baseline 20% worst days of progress at Baseline 20% best days Class I area visibility—20% (improvement 2018—20% visibility— (improvement worst days from baseline) worst days 20% best days from baseline)

Great Smoky Mountains National Park ...... 30.3 23.5 (6.8) 25.79 13.6 12.1 (1.5) Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area ...... 30.3 23.5 (6.8) 25.79 13.6 12.1 (1.5) Linville Gorge Wilderness Area ...... 28.8 22.0 (6.8) 24.67 11.1 9.6 (1.5) Shining Rock Wilderness Area ...... 28.5 22.1 (6.4) 24.50 7.7 6.9 (0.8) Swanquarter Wilderness Area ...... 24.7 20.4 (4.3) 21.66 12.0 11.0 (1.0)

The RPGs for the Class I areas in available. For example, new sources resource-intensive to require a state to North Carolina are based on modeled may be built, existing sources may shut continually adjust its RPGs every time projections of future conditions that down or modify production in response an event affecting these future were developed using the best available to changed economic circumstances, projections changed. information at the time the analysis was and facilities may change their EPA recognized the problems of a done. These projections can be expected emissions characteristics as they install rigid requirement to meet a long-term to change as additional information control equipment to comply with new goal based on modeled projections of regarding future conditions becomes rules. It would be both impractical and future visibility conditions and

17 Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on similarly relied on CAIR emissions reductions Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop within the state to address some or all of their state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). their regional haze SIP submittals.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11876 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

addressed the uncertainties associated the FLMs certify visibility impairment Swanquarter. There is also one with RPGs in several ways. EPA made from an individual source.18 EPA finds IMPROVE site in Tennessee that serves clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a that this regional haze submittal as the monitoring site for both Great mandatory standard which must be appropriately supplements and Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer, achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR augments North Carolina’s RAVI both of which lie partly in Tennessee 35733. At the same time, EPA visibility provisions to address regional and partly in North Carolina. established a requirement for a haze by updating the monitoring and IMPROVE monitoring data from midcourse review and, if necessary, LTS provisions as summarized below in 2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the correction of the states’ regional haze this section. regional haze program, and is relied plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In In its December 17, 2007, submittal, upon in the December 17, 2007, regional particular, the RHR calls for a five-year NCDAQ updated its visibility haze submittal. Data produced by the progress review after submittal of the monitoring program and developed a IMPROVE monitoring network will be initial regional haze plan. The purpose LTS to address regional haze. Also in used nearly continuously for preparing of this progress review is to assess the this submittal, NCDAQ affirmed its the five-year progress reports and the effectiveness of emissions management commitment to complete items required 10-year SIP revisions, each of which strategies in meeting the RPGs and to in the future under EPA’s RHR. relies on analysis of the preceding five provide an assessment of whether Specifically, NCDAQ made a years of data. The Visibility Information current implementation strategies are commitment to review and revise its Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web sufficient for the state or affected states regional haze implementation plan and site has been maintained by VISTAS to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, submit a plan revision to EPA by July and the other RPOs to provide ready based on its assessment, that the RPGs 31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. access to the IMPROVE data and data for a Class I area will not be met, the See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance analysis tools. North Carolina is RHR requires the state to take with the requirements listed in 40 CFR encouraging VISTAS and the other appropriate action. See 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a 52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the similar data management system to action will depend on the basis for the RAVI LTS regulations, NCDAQ facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data. state’s conclusion that the current committed to submitting a report to EPA In addition to the IMPROVE strategies are insufficient to meet the on progress towards the RPGs for each measurements, there is long-term RPGs. North Carolina specifically mandatory Class I area located within limited monitoring by FLMs which committed to follow this process in its North Carolina and for each mandatory provides additional insight into progress submittal. Accordingly, EPA proposes to Class I area located outside North toward regional haze goals. Such approve North Carolina’s RPGs for Great Carolina that may be affected by measurements include: Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer, emissions from within North Carolina. D Web cameras operated by the Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and The progress report is required to be in National Park Service at Look Rock, Swanquarter. the form of a SIP revision and is due Tennessee, and Purchase Knob, North D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional every five years following the initial Carolina, in Great Smoky Mountains, Haze Requirements submittal of the regional haze SIP. See and by the U.S. Forest Service at Frying 40 CFR 51.308(g). Consistent with EPA’s EPA’s visibility regulations direct Pan Mountain in Shining Rock. monitoring regulations for RAVI and D An integrating nephelometer for states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and regional haze, North Carolina will rely monitoring provisions with those for continuously measuring light scattering, on the IMPROVE network for operated by the National Park Service at regional haze, as explained in sections compliance purposes, in addition to any III.F and III.G of this action. Under Look Rock, Tennessee. RAVI monitoring that may be needed in • A Tapered Element Oscillating EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR portion of a state SIP must address any Microbalance for continuously 51.308(d)(4). Also, the North Carolina integral vistas identified by the FLMs measuring PM2.5 mass concentration, new source review (NSR) rules, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR operated by the National Park Service at previously approved in the State’s SIP, 51.302. An integral vista is defined in 40 Look Rock, Tennessee. continue to provide a framework for CFR 51.301 as a ‘‘view perceived from Additional haze-related review and coordination with the FLMs within the mandatory Class I Federal measurements were made in North on new sources and major modifications area of a specific landmark or panorama Carolina in 2002–2005 to better to existing sources subject to the NSR located outside the boundary of the understand source contributions to regulations which may have an adverse mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ PM2.5 mass and visibility. These studies impact on visibility in either form (i.e., Visibility in any mandatory Class I area included continuous monitoring of includes any integral vista associated RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class sulfate, nitrate, and carbon to better I area. with that area. The FLMs did not understand daily trends in PM2.5, identify any integral vistas in North E. Monitoring Strategy and Other detailed analyses of carbon collected on Carolina. In addition, the Class I areas Implementation Plan Requirements filters to identify source contributions to carbon, and additional analyses of in North Carolina are neither The primary monitoring network for sodium and ammonium on IMPROVE experiencing RAVI nor are any of its regional haze in North Carolina is the filter samples. While funding no longer sources affected by the RAVI provisions. IMPROVE network. As discussed in exists to continue these special studies, Thus, the December 17, 2007, North section IV.B.2 of this notice, the VISTAS transferred the monitoring Carolina regional haze SIP submittal following Class I areas in North Carolina equipment to NCDAQ. does not explicitly address the two have IMPROVE monitoring sites: requirements regarding coordination of Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and In the regional haze submittal, the the regional haze with the RAVI LTS State notes that NCDAQ will continue to and monitoring provisions. North 18 North Carolina submitted its visibility SIP operate the following monitors to Carolina has, however, previously made revisions addressing RAVI on April 15, 1985, which further the understanding of both PM2.5 a commitment to address RAVI should EPA approved on January 21, 1986 (51 FR 2695). as well as visibility formation and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11877

trends in North Carolina for as long as Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer). information on the State’s CSA and funds allow: Based on an evaluation of the four copies of the compliance plans for two • Continuous nitrate monitor and reasonable progress statutory factors, utilities in the State showing which continuous sulfate monitor at the North Carolina determined that there emissions units are expected to install Millbrook monitoring site in Raleigh, are no additional control measures for controls to meet CSA NOX and SO2 North Carolina; these North Carolina emissions units emissions caps. North Carolina • Continuous nitrate monitor at the that would be reasonable to implement emphasized in its response letters that Rockwell monitoring site in Rowan to mitigate visibility impacts in the it is important to also evaluate visibility County, North Carolina, with a Class I areas in these neighboring states. impairment contributions for the year continuous sulfate monitor planned for NCDAQ consulted with these states 2018 to reflect implementation of this site as of January 2008; regarding its reasonable progress control programs such as CAIR and CSA. • 5400 R&P monitor for organic, total, evaluations showing no cost-effective NCDAQ noted that based upon VISTAS’ and elemental carbon at the Millbrook controls available for those emissions analyses using 2018 emissions site; and units in North Carolina contributing at projections, no emissions units in North • Aethalometer (whose final location least one percent to visibility Carolina meet NCDAQ’s minimum was yet to be determined at time of SIP impairment at Class I areas in the states. threshold for a reasonable progress development). Additionally, NCDAQ sent letters to control evaluation for the Class I areas In addition, NCDAQ and the local air other states in the VISTAS region, in these states. Thus, NCDAQ stated that agencies in the State operate a specifically Alabama, Georgia, and it does not believe any of its emissions comprehensive PM2.5 network of the South Carolina, documenting its units provide significant contributions filter-based federal reference method analysis using the State’s AOI from sulfate-derived visibility impacts monitors, continuous mass monitors, methodology that no SO2 emissions to these MANE–VU states’ Class I areas, filter-based speciated monitors, and the units in North Carolina contribute at and expressed the State’s willingness to continuous speciated monitors least one percent to the visibility participate in future consultations described above. impairment at the Class I areas in those through VISTAS. states. No adverse comments were In their consultation discussions, the F. Consultation With States and FLMs received from the other VISTAS states. MANE–VU states identified twelve 1. Consultation With Other States The documentation for these formal EGUs in North Carolina that they would consultations is provided in Appendix J like to see controlled to 90 percent In December 2006 and May 2007, the of North Carolina’s SIP. efficiency. They also requested a control State Air Directors from the VISTAS Regarding the impact of sources strategy to provide a 28 percent states held formal interstate outside of the State on Class I areas in reduction in SO2 emissions from consultation meetings. The purpose of North Carolina, NCDAQ sent letters to sources other than EGUs that would be these meetings was to discuss the Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, South equivalent to their low sulfur fuel oil methodology proposed by VISTAS for Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia strategy. North Carolina has controlled identifying sources to evaluate for pertaining to emissions units within or is expecting to control under the reasonable progress. The states invited these states that the State believes North Carolina CSA eleven of the twelve FLM and EPA representatives to contributed one percent or higher to identified EGUs. Additionally, participate and to provide additional visibility impairment in the North scrubbers are expected on three EGUs feedback. The Directors discussed the Carolina Class I areas. At that time, that were not identified by MANE–VU. results of analyses showing these neighboring states were still in the NCDAQ believes that these reductions contributions to visibility impairment process of evaluating BART and satisfy MANE–VU’s request. from states to each of the Class I areas reasonable progress for their sources. EPA proposes to find that North in the VISTAS region. Any controls resulting from those Carolina has adequately addressed the NCDAQ evaluated the impact of determinations will provide additional consultation requirements in the RHR North Carolina sources on Class I areas emissions reductions and resulting and appropriately documented its in neighboring states. The state in which visibility improvement, which give consultation with other states in its SIP a Class I area is located is responsible further assurances that North Carolina submittal. for determining which sources, both will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be 2. Consultation With the FLMs inside and outside of that state, to conservative, North Carolina opted not evaluate for reasonable progress to rely on any additional emissions Through the VISTAS RPO, North controls. Because many of these states reductions from sources located outside Carolina and the nine other member had not yet defined their criteria for the State’s boundaries beyond those states worked extensively with the identifying sources to evaluate for already identified in the State’s regional FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the reasonable progress, North Carolina haze SIP submittal and as discussed in Interior and Agriculture to develop applied its AOI methodology to identify section IV.C.1 of this action. technical analyses that support the sources in the State that have emissions North Carolina also received letters regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS units with impacts large enough to from the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast states. The proposed regional haze plan potentially warrant further evaluation Visibility Union (MANE–VU) RPO for North Carolina was out for FLM and and analysis. The State identified one states of Maine, New Jersey, and New EPA discussions from August to emissions unit in North Carolina with a Hampshire in early 2007 stating that September 2007. North Carolina contribution of one percent or more to based on MANE–VU’s analysis of 2002 subsequently modified the plan to the visibility impairment at the emissions data, North Carolina address comments received on this following Class I area in a neighboring contributed to visibility impairment at initial version and reissued it for public state: James River Face Wilderness Area, Class I areas in those states. These comment from October to November Virginia. North Carolina also identified letters invited North Carolina to 2007. two emissions units that impact the participate in future consultation Regarding North Carolina’s initial shared Class I areas located in both meetings. North Carolina sent response August 2, 2007, draft regional haze SIP North Carolina and Tennessee (Great letters to these states providing and the proposed regional haze SIP

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11878 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules

released for public comment on October is required for those sources subject to C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 12, 2007, the FLMs requested that the the State’s NSR regulations. The RFA generally requires an agency State provide more information in the G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year to conduct a regulatory flexibility SIP revision regarding two facilities, Progress Reports analysis of any rule subject to notice Blue Ridge Paper and PCS Phosphate- and comment rulemaking requirements As also summarized in section IV.D of Aurora. Based on the Blue Ridge Paper’s unless the agency certifies that the rule this notice, consistent with 40 CFR visibility impacts at multiple Class I will not have a significant economic 51.308(g), NCDAQ affirmed its areas, the FLMs asked the State to impact on a substantial number of small commitment to submitting a progress describe a plan to consult with the entities. Small entities include small report in the form of a SIP revision to company on potential control actions businesses, small not-for-profit EPA every five years following this prior to 2018 that may warrant a higher enterprises, and small governmental initial submittal of the North Carolina cost of control for reasonable progress. jurisdictions. For PCS Phosphate, the FLMs expressed regional haze SIP. The report will This rule will not have a significant concern that the facility’s BART evaluate the progress made towards the impact on a substantial number of small determination for this facility did not RPGs for each mandatory Class I area entities because SIP approvals under fully evaluate the effectiveness and located within North Carolina and for section 110 and subchapter I, part D of associated cost of controls. Other each mandatory Class I area located the CAA do not create any new comments asked for clarification of outside North Carolina that may be requirements but simply approve affected by emissions from within North items and for more discussion with requirements that the state is already Carolina. North Carolina also offered specific source information for the AOI imposing. Therefore, because the federal recommendations for several technical reasonable progress evaluations in the SIP approval does not create any new improvements that, as funding allows, main body of the SIP, in addition to the requirements, I certify that this action can support the State’s next LTS. These appendices. North Carolina provided will not have a significant economic recommendations are discussed in impact on a substantial number of small responses to the FLMs regarding their detail in the North Carolina submittal in comments on the draft SIP. The State entities. Appendix K. Moreover, due to the nature of the included more of the detailed If another state’s regional haze SIP reasonable progress control evaluation federal-state relationship under the identifies that North Carolina’s SIP CAA, preparation of a flexibility information in the main body of the SIP. needs to be supplemented or modified, Regarding Blue Ridge Paper, the State analysis would constitute federal and if after appropriate consultation inquiry into the economic described that it acknowledged in the North Carolina agrees, today’s action SIP that the company has visibility reasonableness of state action. The CAA may be revisited, or additional forbids EPA to base its actions impacts on multiple Class I areas and information and/or changes will be has notified the company that although concerning SIPs on such grounds. addressed in the five-year progress Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. additional controls are not being report SIP revision. required this implementation period, 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. future periods may require controls. V. What Action is EPA Proposing? 7410(a)(2). NCDAQ stated in the SIP that it is EPA is proposing a limited approval D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act committed to work with the company of a revision to the North Carolina SIP (UMRA) over the next implementation period submitted by the State of North Carolina Under sections 202 of the Unfunded and encourage the company to on December 17, 2007, as meeting some modernize some of its processes with Mandates Reform Act of 1995 of the applicable regional haze (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed more efficient, less polluting equipment. requirements as set forth in sections For the two BART-eligible units at PCS into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 prepare a budgetary impact statement to Phosphate, the State noted that the CFR 51.300–308, as described accompany any proposed or final rule facility is planning to shut down these previously in this action. that includes a federal mandate that units, and thus, it would not be prudent may result in estimated costs to State, to install controls on them. For the two VI. Statutory and Executive Order local, or tribal governments in the units subject to a reasonable progress Reviews aggregate, or to the private sector, of control analysis, NCDAQ included A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory $100 million or more. Under section additional language in the SIP stating Planning and Review 205, EPA must select the most cost- that it has notified the company that The Office of Management and Budget effective and least burdensome although additional controls are not (OMB) has exempted this regulatory alternative that achieves the objectives being required this period, future action from Executive Order 12866, of the rule and is consistent with implementation periods may require entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and statutory requirements. Section 203 controls to be installed. Review.’’ requires EPA to establish a plan for To address the requirement for informing and advising any small continuing consultation procedures B. Paperwork Reduction Act governments that may be significantly with the FLMs under 40 CFR Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, or uniquely impacted by the rule. 51.308(i)(4), NCDAQ made a 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must EPA has determined that today’s commitment in the SIP to ongoing approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ proposal does not include a federal consultation with the FLMs on regional by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of mandate that may result in estimated haze issues throughout implementation information’’ as a requirement for costs of $100 million or more to either of its plan, including annual discussions answers to * * * identical reporting or state, local, or tribal governments in the of the implementation process and the recordkeeping requirements imposed on aggregate, or to the private sector. This most recent data from IMPROVE ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. federal action proposes to approve pre- monitoring and VIEWS. NCDAQ also 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction existing requirements under state or affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation Act does not apply to this action. local law, and imposes no new

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11879

requirements. Accordingly, no implications.’’ This proposed rule does relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate additional costs to state, local, or tribal not have tribal implications, as specified matter, Reporting and recordkeeping governments, or to the private sector, in Executive Order 13175. It will not requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile result from this action. have substantial direct effects on tribal organic compounds. governments. Thus, Executive Order E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, specifically solicits additional comment Dated: February 15, 2012. 1999) revokes and replaces Executive on this proposed rule from tribal A. Stanley Meiburg, Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 officials. Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. (Enhancing the Intergovernmental [FR Doc. 2012–4711 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Partnership). Executive Order 13132 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P requires EPA to develop an accountable Children From Environmental Health process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and Risks and Safety Risks timely input by State and local officials Protection of Children from ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION in the development of regulatory Environmental Health Risks and Safety AGENCY policies that have federalism Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have applies to any rule that: (1) Is 40 CFR Part 52 federalism implications’’ is defined in determined to be ‘‘economically [EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0784, FRL–9638–4] the Executive Order to include significant’’ as defined under Executive regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Order 12866, and (2) concerns an Approval and Promulgation of Air effects on the states, on the relationship environmental health or safety risk that Quality Implementation Plans; State of between the national government and EPA has reason to believe may have a Mississippi; Regional Haze State the states, or on the distribution of disproportionate effect on children. If Implementation Plan power and responsibilities among the the regulatory action meets both criteria, AGENCY: various levels of government.’’ Under the Agency must evaluate the Environmental Protection Executive Order 13132, EPA may not environmental health or safety effects of Agency (EPA). issue a regulation that has federalism the planned rule on children, and ACTION: Proposed rule. implications, that imposes substantial explain why the planned regulation is SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited direct compliance costs, and that is not preferable to other potentially effective required by statute, unless the federal approval of two revisions to the and reasonably feasible alternatives Mississippi state implementation plan government provides the funds considered by the Agency. necessary to pay the direct compliance (SIP) submitted by the State of This rule is not subject to Executive Mississippi through the Mississippi costs incurred by state and local Order 13045 because it does not involve governments, or EPA consults with state Department of Environmental Quality decisions intended to mitigate (MDEQ) on September 22, 2008, and and local officials early in the process environmental health or safety risks. of developing the proposed regulation. May 9, 2011, that address regional haze EPA also may not issue a regulation that H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That for the first implementation period. has federalism implications and that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, These revisions address the preempts state law unless the Agency Distribution, or Use requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA consults with state and local officials This rule is not subject to Executive or Act) and EPA’s rules that require early in the process of developing the Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning states to prevent any future and remedy proposed regulation. Regulations That Significantly Affect any existing anthropogenic impairment This rule will not have substantial Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 of visibility in mandatory Class I areas direct effects on the states, on the FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is (national parks and wilderness areas) relationship between the national not a significant regulatory action under caused by emissions of air pollutants government and the states, or on the Executive Order 12866. from numerous sources located over a distribution of power and wide geographic area (also referred to as responsibilities among the various I. National Technology Transfer and the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are levels of government, as specified in Advancement Act (NTTAA) required to assure reasonable progress Executive Order 13132, because it Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 toward the national goal of achieving merely approves a state rule requires federal agencies to evaluate natural visibility conditions in Class I implementing a federal standard, and existing technical standards when areas. EPA is proposing a limited does not alter the relationship or the developing a new regulation. To comply approval of these SIP revisions to distribution of power and with NTTAA, EPA must consider and implement the regional haze responsibilities established in the CAA. use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ requirements for Mississippi on the Thus, the requirements of section 6 of (VCS) if available and applicable when basis that the revisions, as a whole, the Executive Order do not apply to this developing programs and policies strengthen the Mississippi SIP. EPA has rule. unless doing so would be inconsistent previously proposed a limited with applicable law or otherwise disapproval of the Mississippi regional F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination impractical. haze SIP because of deficiencies in the With Indian Tribal Governments EPA believes that VCS are State’s regional haze SIP submittal Executive Order 13175, entitled inapplicable to this action. Today’s arising from the remand by the U.S. ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with action does not require the public to Court of Appeals for the District of Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR perform activities conducive to the use Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA of VCS. of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). to develop an accountable process to Consequently, EPA is not proposing to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 take action in this rulemaking to address tribal officials in the development of Environmental protection, Air the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet regulatory policies that have tribal pollution control, Intergovernmental certain regional haze requirements.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS