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

shall constitute the official record of the 

proceeding. 

§ 952.33 Public information. 

The Librarian of the Postal Service 

maintains for public inspection in the 

Library copies of all initial, tentative 

and final agency decisions and orders. 

The Recorder maintains the complete 

official record of every proceeding. 

§ 952.34 Ex parte communications. 

The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 551(14), 

556(d), and 557(d) prohibiting ex parte 

communications apply to proceedings 

under these rules of practice. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Chief Counsel, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5872 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011—0131, FRL–9280–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan and Interstate 

Transport Plan; Interference With 

Visibility Requirement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period through 2018. 

This revision addresses the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘Act’’) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

approve certain portions of this 

Regional Haze SIP revision and a related 

SIP revision submitted by California on 

November 16, 2007, as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference 

with other states’ measures to protect 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before April 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2011—0131 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: Wamsley.Jerry@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: 

Jerry Wamsley). 

4. Mail: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region 9, 

Air Division, Planning Office (Air-2), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011— 

0131. Our policy is that EPA will 

include all comments received in the 

public docket without change. EPA may 

make comments available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, EPA will include 

your e-mail address as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 9, Air Division, 

Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA 

requests that you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 9–5:30 PST, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Wamsley, U.S.E.P.A., Region 9, Air 

Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105; via telephone at (415) 947–4111; 

or via electronic mail at 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our,’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittals 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport Pollution and 

Visibility Requirements 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

E. Long Term Strategy 

F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP 

and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of the California Regional 

Haze Plan 

A. Affected Class I Areas in California 

B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate 

of Progress 

1. Baseline and Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13945 

1See the following documents: Transmittal letter 

dated March 16, 2009 from James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, 

to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator 

USEPA Region IX; and, State of California, Air 

Resource Board Resolution 09–4, dated January 22, 

2009, adopting the California Regional Haze Plan. 

2Transmittal letter dated September 8, 2009 from 

James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California 

Air Resources Board, to Laura Yoshii, Acting 

Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with 

attachments. 

3Transmittal letter dated June 9, 2010 from James 

N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with attachments. 

4See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007, 

from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, 

to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution 

No. 07–28 (September 27, 2007). 

5See ‘‘Technical and Clarifying Modifications to 

April 26, 2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board’s 

Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised Draft 

Appendices A through G,’’ included as Attachment 

A to CARB’s Board Resolution 07–28 (September 

27, 2007). 

6The other elements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) require that California emission 

sources do not (a) contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS in any other State, (b) interfere with 

maintenance of these standards by any other State, 

and (c) interfere with measures required under Part 

C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of 

air quality in regard to these standards. 

7 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

8Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA and after consulting with the Department of 

the Interior, EPA promulgated a list of 156 areas 

where visibility is identified as an important value. 

44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

Continued 

C. California Emissions Inventories 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment 

1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

California Class I Areas 

2. California Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment in Class I Areas Outside of 

the State 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Evaluation 

1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART 

2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility 

Impairment 

3. Sources Already Controlled to BART 

F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

2. Interstate Consultation 

G. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs 

a. Mobile Source Programs 

b. Stationary and Area Source Regulations 

by Local Air Agencies 

2. Construction Activities 

3. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

4. Smoke Management Programs 

5. Enforceability of Measures in the LongTerm Strategy 

H. Monitoring Strategy 

I. Federal Land Manager Consultation and 

Coordination 

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-year 

Progress Reports 

V. EPA’s Analysis of How California’s 

Regional Haze Plan Meets Interstate 

Transport Requirements 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittals 

Today’s proposed action concerns two 

submittals from California. The first 

submittal from the state is the California 

Regional Haze Plan (CRHP). The second 

submittal from the state is the 2007 

Transport SIP, submitted as Appendix C 

to the State Strategy for California’s 

2007 State Implementation Plan for the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. Details on both 

submittals follow below. 

The California Air Resource Board 

(ARB) submitted the California Regional 

Haze Plan (CRHP) to EPA on March 16, 

2009.1 ARB submitted additional 

materials to EPA on September 8, 2009.2

After discussion with EPA staff 

regarding BART-eligible sources, ARB 

submitted updated information about 

these sources on June 9, 2010.3 ARB’s 

March 16, 2009 submittal includes 

public process documentation for the 

CRHP and documentation of a duly 

noticed public hearing held on January 

22, 2009. 

On November 16, 2007, ARB 

submitted the State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 State Strategy).4

Appendix C of the 2007 State Strategy, 

as modified by Attachment A,5 contains 

the ‘‘Interstate Transport State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 to satisfy the 

Requirements of Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of California’’ 

(2007 Transport SIP). The 2007 

Transport SIP addresses the Transport 

SIP requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

ARB’s November 16, 2007 submittal 

includes public process documentation 

for the 2007 State Strategy, including 

the 2007 Transport SIP. In addition, the 

SIP revision includes documentation of 

a duly noticed public hearing held on 

September 27, 2007 on the proposed 

2007 State Strategy. 

For the portion of today’s proposed 

action related to the 2007 Transport SIP, 

we are proposing action only with 

regard to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirement that the SIP must prohibit 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in California from emitting 

pollutants that will interfere with 

another state’s measures to protect 

visibility. EPA intends to act in separate 

proposals on other portions of 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP that 

address the remaining elements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.6

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

produced by a multitude of sources and 

activities located across a broad 

geographic area that emit fine particles 

(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 

and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and in 

some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental impacts, 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution.7 In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program to protect visibility in 

the nation’s national parks and 

wilderness areas.8 This section of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13946 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

9Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. 

These regulations represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999, 

the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 

35713). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate 

provisions addressing regional haze 

impairment and to establish a 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

plan revision to the SIP applies to all 50 

states, the District of Columbia and the 

Virgin Islands.9 40 CFR 51.308(b) 

requires states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to address 

effectively the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop coordinated strategies with 

one another, taking into account the 

effect of emissions from one jurisdiction 

on the air quality in another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP), one of five RPOs nationally, is 

a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, 

Federal, and local air agencies dealing 

with air quality in the west. WRAP 

member states include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members 

include Campo Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation 

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 

Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall. 

D. Interstate Transport Pollution and 

Visibility Requirements 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

PM2.5. See 62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652. 

Section 110(a)(1)requires states to 

submit a plan to address certain 

requirements for a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years after 

promulgation of such standards, or 

within such shorter time as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

elements that such new plan 

submissions must address, as 

applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On April 25, 2005, EPA issued a 

‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for 

Interstate Transport for the 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 70 FR 

21147. This included a finding that 

California and other states had failed to 

submit SIPs to address interstate 

transport of emissions affecting 

visibility and started a two-year clock 

for the promulgation of a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA, 

unless the state made a submission to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such 

submission. Id. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued 

guidance on this topic entitled, 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (‘‘2006 Guidance’’). 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

require each state to have a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

other states in ways contemplated in the 

statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains 

four distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. The SIP 

must prevent sources in the state from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

states; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states; or, (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other states. 

With respect to establishing that 

emissions from sources in the state 

would not interfere with measures in 

other states to protect visibility, the 

2006 Guidance recommended that states 

make a submission indicating that it 

was premature, at that time, to 

determine whether there would be any 

interference with measures in the 

applicable SIP for another state 

designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ until the 

submission and approval of regional 

haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were 

required to be submitted by December 

17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later 

point in time, however, EPA believes it 

is now necessary to evaluate such 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from 

a state to ensure that the existing SIP, or 

the SIP as modified by the submission, 

contains adequate provisions to prevent 

interference with the visibility programs 

of other states, such as for consistency 

with the assumptions for controls relied 

upon by other states in establishing 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze. 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13947 

10The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

importance of addressing the long-range 

transport of pollutants for visibility and 

encourages states to work together to 

develop plans to address haze. The 

regulations explicitly require each state 

to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. Working 

together through a regional planning 

process, states are required to address 

an agreed upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 

requirements, we anticipate that 

regional haze SIPs will contain 

measures that will achieve these 

emissions reductions, and that these 

measures will meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the west, all states in the 

WRAP region contributed information 

to a Technical Support System (TSS) 

which provides an analysis of the 

causes of haze, and the levels of 

contribution from all sources within 

each state to the visibility degradation of 

each Class I area. The WRAP states 

consulted in the development of 

reasonable progress goals, using the 

products of this technical consultation 

process to co-develop their reasonable 

progress goals for the western Class I 

areas. The modeling done by the WRAP 

relied on assumptions regarding 

emissions over the relevant planning 

period and embedded in these 

assumptions were anticipated emissions 

reductions in each of the states in the 

WRAP, including reductions from 

installation of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) at appropriate 

sources and other measures to be 

adopted as part of the state’s long-term 

strategy for addressing regional haze. 

The reasonable progress goals in the 

draft and final regional haze SIPs that 

have now been prepared by states in the 

west accordingly are based, in part, on 

the emissions reductions from nearby 

states that were agreed on through the 

WRAP process. 

California’s 2007 Transport SIP refers 

to EPA’s 2006 Guidance and states that 

the Regional Haze SIP would address 

interstate regional haze impacts. We 

interpret this to mean that California 

intended its Regional Haze Plan to 

address the interstate visibility 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. Accordingly, our evaluation of 

the 2007 Transport SIP and whether it 

meets these CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

visibility requirements relies on our 

evaluation of relevant information from 

California’s Regional Haze Plan. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric for measuring 

visibility. This visibility metric 

expresses uniform changes in haziness 

in terms of common increments across 

the entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Visibility expressed in 

deciviews is determined by using air 

quality measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.10

The deciview is used to express 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (which 

are interim visibility goals towards 

meeting the national visibility goal), 

defining baseline, current and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. The regional haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and, as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each ten-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a 

specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 

September 2003 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13948 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

11The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one 

for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I 

area for each (approximately) ten-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs), states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) ten-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and, (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. 

4–2, 5–1) (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’). In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 

‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) or the 

‘‘glide path’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the ten-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress that states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 11 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART)’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts, a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX and PM. EPA 

has indicated that states should use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. An exemption threshold set by 

the state should not be higher than 0.5 

deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described in 

the RHR as ‘‘BART-eligible sources’’, and 

document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance; (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source; (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source; and, (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance assigned to each factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date EPA approves the regional 

haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is 

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a tenmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13949 

to fifteen-year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a long-term strategy (LTS) in their 

regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures a 

state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures needed 

to achieve the reasonable progress goals’’ 

for all Class I areas within and affected 

by emissions from the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with contributing states to 

develop coordinated emissions 

management strategies. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP, all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultation between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues (e.g., where 

two states belong to different RPOs). 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and, (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordination of the Regional Haze 

SIP and Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

requires a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

on regional haze visibility impairment 

that is representative of all mandatory 

Class I areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., 

review and use of monitoring data from 

the network. The monitoring strategy is 

due with the first regional haze SIP, and 

it must be reviewed every five years. 

The monitoring strategy must also 

provide for additional monitoring sites 

if the IMPROVE network is not 

sufficient to determine whether RPGs 

will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. 

A state must also make a commitment 

to update the inventory periodically; 

and, 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every ten years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least sixty 

days prior to holding any public hearing 

on the SIP. This consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of impairment 

of visibility in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the RPGs and on the 

development and implementation of 

strategies to address visibility 

impairment. Furthermore, a state must 

include in its SIP a description of how 

it addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the state and FLMs regarding 

the state’s visibility protection program, 

including development and review of 

SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 

and the implementation of other 

programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13950 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12See Figure 1–2, ‘‘California’s Class I Areas and 

IMPROVE Monitoring Network, page 1–4, CRHP, 

for a listing and a map showing the twenty-nine 

Class I areas. 

13Table 2–1, ‘‘IMPROVE monitors and Visibility 

at California Class I Areas’’, page 2–3, CRHP 

provides a detailed listing of IMPROVE monitor 

assignments. Also, see Figure 2–1, CRHP, 

‘‘California’s Geographic Sub-regions’’, page 2–6 for 

a visual representation. 

14For our detailed review and discussion, please 

see ‘‘Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership in Support of Western Regional Haze 

Plans’’, Final, February 2011 (WRAP TSD). 

15See Table 8 for a complete listing of the ‘‘best 

20 percent of days’’ and ‘‘worst 20 percent of days’’ 

and a comparison between 2000–2004 and 2018 

deciview values for each California Class I area. 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of the California 

Regional Haze Plan 

As described in Section I, the 

California Regional Haze SIP consists of 

the CRHP and two supplemental 

submittals. ARB submitted the CRHP to 

EPA on March 16, 2009. ARB submitted 

additional materials to EPA on 

September 8, 2009. ARB submitted 

updated information about BARTeligible sources on June 9, 2010. 

A. Affected Class I Areas in California 

There are twenty-nine affected Class I 

areas in California.12 These Class I areas 

include the following national parks, 

national monuments, and wilderness 

areas managed by the U.S. National Park 

Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

(USBLM): 

1. Redwood National Park; 

2. Marble Mountain Wilderness; 

3. Lava Beds National Monument; 

4. South Warner Wilderness; 

5. Thousand Lakes Wilderness; 

6. Lassen Volcanic National Park; 

7. Caribou Wilderness; 

8. Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness 

(includes land managed by USBLM); 

9. Point Reyes National Seashore; 

10. Ventana Wilderness; 

11. Pinnacles National Monument; 

12. Desolation Wilderness; 

13. Mokelumne Wilderness; 

14. Emigrant Wilderness; 

15. Hoover Wilderness; 

16. Yosemite National Park; 

17. Ansel Adams Wilderness; 

18. Kaiser Wilderness; 

19. John Muir Wilderness; 

20. Kings Canyon National Park; 

21. Sequoia National Park; 

22. Dome Lands Wilderness (includes 

land managed by the USBLM); 

23. San Rafael Wilderness; 

24. San Gabriel Wilderness; 

25. Cucamonga Wilderness; 

26. San Gorgonio Wilderness; 

27. San Jacinto Wilderness; 

28. Agua Tibia Wilderness; and, 

29. Joshua Tree National Park. 

As part of its analysis, ARB 

apportioned the state’s twenty-nine 

Class I areas into the following four subregions: Northern California; Sierra 

California; Coastal California; and, 

Southern California. Within each subregion, the Class I areas are assigned to 

a specific representative IMPROVE 

monitor. For example, within the 

Northern California sub-region, Class I 

areas are assigned as follows: The 

Marble Mountain Wilderness and the 

Yolla-Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness are 

assigned to the Trinity IMPROVE 

monitor; the Lava Beds National 

Monument and South Warner 

Wilderness are assigned to the Lava 

Beds IMPROVE monitor; and, the 

Lassen Volcanic National Park, the 

Caribou wilderness, and the Thousand 

Lakes wilderness are assigned to the 

Lassen Volcanic IMPROVE monitor.13

California’s four sub-regions for 

analyzing regional haze represent 

groupings that consider the unique 

terrain, ecology, land use, and weather 

patterns around each IMPROVE 

monitor. ARB’s detailed examination of 

the resultant ambient air monitoring 

data showed similarities within 

definable intra-State regions. These four 

sub-regions are different from each other 

based on physiographic features and 

land use patterns. California has 

grouped its Class I Areas by geographic 

sub-region to facilitate comparison of 

different landscapes, meteorological 

conditions, the impacts of local and 

regional emissions, and the results of 

local and regional control measures. 

California identified Class I areas 

outside of the state that are affected by 

California’s regional haze pollutants. 

(CRHP, Figure 8.1) The CRHP also 

examined specific visibility effects of 

emissions on the following Class I areas 

outside of the state: Jarbidge Wilderness 

Area, Nevada; Kalmiopsis Wilderness 

Area and Crater Lake National Park, 

Oregon; and, Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness Area and Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona. 

To conclude, we believe that 

California has identified all of Class I 

areas in the state that may be affected by 

emissions from California. Also, 

California identified Class I areas in 

neighboring states that may be affected 

by emissions from California. (CRHP, 

Figure 8.1) 

B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform 

Rate of Progress 

ARB developed the visibility 

estimates in the CRHP using models and 

analytical tools provided by the WRAP. 

We have reviewed the models and 

analytical tools used by the WRAP and 

those used by ARB in developing the 

CHRP. In summary, we found that the 

models were used appropriately, 

consistent with EPA guidance in effect 

at the time of their use. The models 

used by the WRAP were state-of-thescience at the time the modeling was 

conducted and model performance was 

adequate for the purposes that they were 

used.14

1. Baseline and Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Baseline visibility conditions 

represent the degree of visibility 

impairment for the 20 percent least 

impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. 

Appendix B of the CRHP provides the 

details of these 2000–2004 baseline 

deciview calculations for each Class I 

area. 

For each Class I area, ARB calculated, 

in deciviews, the current visibility 

conditions (worst 20 percent of days) for 

the 2000–2004 baseline period (Table 1, 

column A) and the future natural 

conditions for 2064 (Table 1, column D), 

the long-term programmatic goal. ARB 

calculated the deciview value 

representing the best visibility days 

during 2000–2004 baseline conditions, a 

value that must be maintained in future 

years.15

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13951 

16See Table 7–2, ‘‘Summary of Reasonable 

Progress Goal and Uniform Rate of Progress to 

Future Natural Conditions, 2018 Worst Days URP,’’ 

page 7–10, CRHP. 

TABLE 1—VISIBILITY CALCULATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS

[Grouped by related IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews] 

Class I Area (NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, 

NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore) 

2000–04 

Baseline 

(worst 20% of 

days) 

2018 

Reasonable 

Progress Goal 

(RPG) 

(worst 20% of 

days) 

2018 

Uniform Rate 

of Progress 

estimate 

(URP) 

2064 Natural 

condition 

Date natural 

condition 

reached at 

RPG rate of 

improvement 

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

Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly Middle Eel WA (TRIN 

monitor) ............................................................................ 17.4 16.4 15.2 7.9 2137 

Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ............ 15.1 14.4 13.4 7.9 2148 

Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA 

(LAVO monitor) ................................................................ 14.2 13.3 12.6 7.3 2123 

Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) ................. 12.6 12.3 11.1 6.1 2307 

Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ............................................... 12.9 12.5 11.7 7.7 2186 

Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ...................... 17.6 16.7 15.3 7.6 2160 

Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS monitor) ................................................................................... 15.5 14.9 13.6 7.1 2200 

Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ................ 25.4 22.7 21.2 7.7 2096 

Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ...................................... 19.4 18.1 16.6 7.5 2132 

Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ............................................ 18.5 17.8 17.4 13.9 2096 

Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ........................................ 22.8 21.3 21.2 15.8 2069 

Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) ....................... 18.5 16.7 16.0 8.0 2086 

San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) .......................................... 18.8 17.3 16.2 7.6 2109 

San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ............ 19.9 17.4 16.9 7.0 2076 

San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ........ 22.2 19.9 18.7 7.3 2095 

Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ............................................ 23.5 21.6 19.8 7.6 2121 

Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ........................................ 19.6 17.9 16.7 7.2 2106 

Source: Table 7–2, page 7–10, CRHP. 

2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate 

ARB calculated the uniform rate of 

progress (URP) estimate for each Class I 

area using the 2000–2004 baseline 

deciview and 2064 programmatic goal 

deciview values. Essentially, the URP is 

represented as the line drawn between 

a given Class I area’s 2004 baseline 

value and 2064 natural condition or 

programmatic goal value. This line is 

linear and assumes the same increment 

of progress every year for 60 years. 

Figure 7–1 of the CRHP provides an 

illustration of the uniform rate of 

progress calculation and its graphic 

representation. ARB then calculated 

each Class I area’s URP estimate for 

2018.16 The URPs for each Class I area 

are listed in Table 1, column C. 

EPA has determined that California 

has produced the following visibility 

estimates in deciviews for each Class I 

area: Baseline visibility conditions; a 

ten-year reasonable progress estimate for 

2018; a 2018 uniform rate of progress 

estimate for comparison purposes; and a 

2064 natural condition estimate. We 

propose to find that these estimates are 

consistent with the requirements of the 

RHR, particularly those requirements at 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) and (iii). Also, we 

propose to find that California has 

produced URP estimates consistent with 

the requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). 

C. California Emissions Inventories 

The RHR requires a statewide 

emissions inventory of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(v). In establishing baseline 

visibility conditions in each Class I area, 

the CRHP provides an emissions 

inventory for 2002, representing the 

mid-point of the 2000–2004 baseline 

timeframe. Also, to chart progress in 

each Class I area, the CRHP estimated 

emissions for 2018, the first ten-year 

programmatic milestone. The emissions 

inventories estimate annual emissions 

for the following haze producing 

pollutants: Oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), 

particulate matter smaller than 10 

microns but larger than 2.5 microns (PM 

coarse), fine particulate matter from 

organic carbon (OC Fine PM), fine 

particulate matter from elemental 

carbon (EC Fine PM), and fine 

particulate matter from other sources 

(Other Fine PM). The emissions 

inventories are divided into four source 

categories: Stationary sources, area 

sources, mobile sources, and natural 

sources. See Table 2. This information 

was also analyzed to compare 

anthropogenic versus natural sources of 

emissions. See Table 3. 

TABLE 2—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR CALIFORNIA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND

2018 

[Tons per year] 

Pollutant 

Stationary (tpy) Area (tpy) Mobile (tpy) Natural (tpy) 

2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 

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

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13952 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR CALIFORNIA REGIONAL HAZE POLLUTANTS BY SOURCE CATEGORY FOR 2002 AND

2018—Continued 

[Tons per year] 

Pollutant 

Stationary (tpy) Area (tpy) Mobile (tpy) Natural (tpy) 

2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 

SO2 ........................................... 42,227 49,632 9,139 10,134 11,588 3,800 9,840 9,840 

VOC ......................................... 54,632 54,631 335,114 594,843 518,405 232,839 2,890,198 2,890,198 

NH3 ........................................... 433 0 202,045 193,486 22,679 30,430 7,595 7,595 

PM Coarse ............................... 10,172 13,700 263,902 291,429 5,075 6,389 23,124 23,124 

Fine PM OC ............................. 5,515 3,696 44,986 36,777 13,991 15,834 92,097 92,097 

Fine PM EC ............................. 933 835 5,887 5,503 21,577 12,589 19,078 19,078 

Other PM Fine ......................... 10,537 12,317 55,005 54,016 2,125 2,929 5,880 5,880 

Source: Table 3–2, ‘‘Individual Pollutants and Source Categories,’’ page 3–4 CRHP. 

TABLE 3—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR ANTHROPOGENIC AND NATURAL SOURCES

Source (tons/year) Anthropogenic 

share (percent) Pollutant Anthropogenic Natural 

NOX ........................................................................................................................................ 1,127,359 93,043 92 

SO2 ........................................................................................................................................ 62,954 9,840 86 

VOC ....................................................................................................................................... 908,151 2,890,198 24 

NH3 ........................................................................................................................................ 225,157 7,595 97 

PM Coarse ............................................................................................................................. 279,148 23,124 92 

OC Fine PM ........................................................................................................................... 64,491 92,097 41 

EC Fine PM ........................................................................................................................... 28,397 19,078 60 

Other PM Fine ....................................................................................................................... 67,667 5,880 92 

Source: Based on Table 3–1, ‘‘Overall Emission Source Inventory,’’ page 3–3 CRHP. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment 

Within Appendix B of the CRHP, ARB 

analyzed the contribution of various 

pollutants to light extinction (i.e., 

visibility impairment) for each Class I 

area in the state. EPA compiled 

California’s data for each of the Class I 

areas into a single table. Table 4 shows 

how much each pollutant contributed to 

light extinction at each of California’s 

Class I areas during the period from 

2000 to 2004. 

TABLE 4—PERCENTAGE OF LIGHT EXTINCTION CONTRIBUTED BY EACH POLLUTANT IN CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS ON

WORST 20% OF DAYS, 2000–2004 

[Averaged observations] 

Class I area 

NO3

and/or 

AmNO3

SO4

and/or 

AmSO4

OMC EC CM Soil Sea 

salt 

Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor) ............... 12.7 17.1 54.5 8.6 4.8 1 .8 0.6 

Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ..................................... 8.9 17.3 55.9 8.4 6.6 2 .5 0.3 

Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA (LAVO monitor) .. 10.9 20.1 50.8 9.1 5.9 3 .0 0.09 

Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) ........................................... 8.7 18.4 50.9 10.8 7.6 3 .6 0.07 

Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ......................................................................... 5.2 16.2 50.0 7.8 15.3 5 .2 0.32 

Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ............................................... 14.8 14.4 52.9 8.8 7.3 1 .6 0.18 

Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS monitor) ..................... 18.1 21.9 38.3 7.2 11.1 2 .3 0.56 

Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) .......................................... 54.6 14.9 18.8 5.2 5.6 0 .76 0.25 

Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ................................................................ 25.8 19.5 27.8 6.3 17.9 2 .4 0.32 

Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ...................................................................... 13.1 27.9 15.0 2.8 7.7 0 .56 33.0 

Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) .................................................................. 39.6 14.5 12.5 3.4 7.7 0 .41 21.9 

Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) ................................................. 31.6 25.7 24.4 8.5 7.0 1 .1 1.7 

San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) .................................................................... 20.2 36.0 22.8 4.9 12.6 1 .8 1.8 

San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ..................................... 40.0 17.8 22.1 6.2 12.0 1 .3 0.58 

San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) .................................. 53.0 15.6 16.5 6.1 7.2 1 .3 0.24 

Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ..................................................................... 31.1 33 18.2 6.7 8.9 1 .4 0.83 

Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) .................................................................. 42.9 19.3 16.2 6.5 12.3 2 .5 0.31 

Class I Abbreviations: NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore. 

Pollutant Abbreviations: NO3 = Nitrate; AmNO3 = Ammonium Nitrate; SO4 = Sulfate; AmSO4 = Ammonium Sulfate; OMC = Organic Matter Carbon; EC = Elemental Carbon; Soil = PM Soil; CM = Coarse Matter. 

Source: Appendix B, CA RHP. See each monitor analysis chapter. 

As the data in Table 4 show, the three 

primary contributors or drivers of haze 

in California are: Nitrates, organic 

carbon, and sulfates. Conversely, the 

monitoring data also show that coarse 

mass particulate matter, elemental 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13953 

17See Table 8.1 Nitrate Contribution to Haze in 

Baseline Years, page 8–3 and Table 8.2, Sulfate 

Contribution to Haze In Baseline Years, page 8–4, 

CRHP. 

carbon, and fine soils do not drive 

visibility impairment on worst case 

days. 

1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

California Class I Areas 

According to Appendix B of the 

CRHP, light extinction from nitrate is a 

key driver of haze at many California 

Class I sites, especially in Southern 

California and other sites located near 

major urban areas and transportation 

corridors. (CRHP, Section 4.7.3) This 

finding is consistent with the WRAP’s 

Particulate Source Apportionment 

Technology (PSAT) showing that NOX

from mobile sources was the most 

significant precursor of nitrate pollution 

at these Class I areas. The CRHP states, 

‘‘The gradient of least to most influence 

in light extinction corresponds directly 

to the amount of mobile source NOX

emissions nearby.’’ (CRHP, page 7–3, see 

also sub-regional discussions in CRHP, 

Section 4.7) 

Appendix B of the CRHP also shows 

that organic carbon is the significant 

cause of worst day haze, in all of the 

state but Southern California. The 

WRAP source apportionment analysis, 

which formed the basis for the analysis 

in the CRHP, suggests that wildfires, 

biogenics (natural plant, animal, and 

soil organism emissions), and area 

sources are the primary contributors to 

organic carbon constituting from 25 

percent to 90 percent on worst visibility 

days. Biogenic emissions peak during 

the dry wildfire season, and contribute 

the most natural organic carbon, 

annually. Much of the directly emitted 

organic carbon in California comes from 

wildfires. Also, source apportionment 

modeling found that the majority of 

secondary organic carbon is derived 

from biogenic emission sources. A 

review of the PSAT analysis indicates 

that pollution from wildfires dominates 

in Class I areas with more than 50 

percent light extinction from organic 

carbon. 

Using PSAT modeling again, ARB 

found sulfates also drive haze at some 

Class I areas on some worst days, with 

the influence most perceptible along the 

coast. PSAT results indicate that 

Offshore and non-WRAP region sources 

are the largest contributors, accounting 

for approximately 50 to 75 percent of 

the measured sulfate levels. In-state 

anthropogenic sulfate emissions are 

estimated to account for 1 percent to 35 

percent. (CRHP, Section 6.2.3). There 

are very few large SOX sources in 

California and low sulfur fuel is already 

required for both mobile and stationary 

sources. Offshore emissions appear to 

contribute both natural marine sulfates 

and SOX from marine commercial 

shipping activities. The Coastal subregion and Southern California 

experience larger impacts from offshore 

shipping. Class I Areas in Southern 

California show slightly higher 

contributions from California 

anthropogenic sulfate (22 percent to 35 

percent) than other Class I Areas, 

reflecting the proximity to point sources 

such as refineries and port-related 

activities. 

Coarse mass particulates do not drive 

haze on worst days in California. 

Occasionally, coarse mass particulates 

may contribute to a single worst day at 

some of the drier Class I areas in the 

Mojave Desert and on the lee side of the 

Sierra Nevada. The days with slightly 

elevated coarse mass particulates are 

almost always associated with 

windblown dust events. These winddriven events also cause very slight 

elevations in fine soil (PM2.5 fraction of 

dust), but this species never drives 

worst days. 

Elemental carbon is not a driver of 

haze on worst days in California. 

Despite its strong capability to 

extinguish light, emissions are very low 

and are not expected to increase through 

2018. 

Fine soil contributes least to haze 

statewide and is not a driver of haze on 

worst days. Fine soil is less than 1 

percent of the annual contribution to 

light extinction at many IMPROVE 

monitors on best and worst days, with 

the highest annual average worst day 

contribution being just over 5 percent at 

one isolated IMPROVE monitor (HOOV) 

in the rain shadow (drier lee side) of the 

Sierra Nevada. On a day-to-day basis, 

fluctuations in concentration at the 

IMPROVE monitors are associated with 

high wind events. 

To summarize, ARB found the three 

primary drivers of haze in California to 

come from the following source 

categories: Mobile sources for nitrate, 

natural sources for organic carbon, and 

off-shore and non-WRAP region sources 

for sulfate. These three sources are 

likely to retain a large influence on 

visibility conditions in the future as 

well. Studies show coarse mass 

particulate matter, elemental carbon, 

and fine soils do not drive visibility 

impairment on worst-case days. 

Regarding emissions from other 

western states and their visibility 

effects, given mountains in the east and 

north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and 

prevailing weather patterns that move 

from west to east, emissions from 

neighboring states are not expected to 

significantly affect visibility in 

California’s Class I areas. Smoke, 

however, from large wildfires in 

neighboring states, is an exception as it 

would be expected to impair visibility. 

To conclude, California’s largest 

source of controllable visibility 

impairing emissions is NOX from mobile 

sources (see the 2002 emissions 

inventory estimate in Table 2). Results 

from California’s source apportionment 

analysis show that other anthropogenic 

emissions contributing to haze come 

from sources that are not within 

California’s control. For example, 

organic carbon emissions from natural 

sources such as wildfires and biogenics, 

whether from in-state or out-of-state, 

contribute significantly to impaired 

visibility at all Class I areas in 

California. Also, visibility impairment 

from sulfates is caused by international 

sources outside the WRAP states, such 

as shipping. While California has 

programs to reduce in-state organic 

carbon and SO2 emissions, the CRHP 

indicates that reductions in 

anthropogenic sources of NOX, 

especially NOX from mobile sources, 

will lead to significant visibility 

improvements in California Class I 

areas. 

2. California Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment in Class I Areas Outside of 

the State 

Within the baseline years, California 

is estimated to have a very small impact 

on visibility impairment in the 

following Class I areas in nearby states: 

Jarbidge Wilderness Area, Nevada; 

Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area and Crater 

Lake National Park, Oregon; and, 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area and 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. 

The CRHP shows the NOX and SOX

contributions to haze during the 

baseline years in these neighboring outof-state Class I areas.17 The measured 

contribution of NOX and SOX emissions 

to particle light extinction is relatively 

small in these Class I areas, as is the 

estimated contribution of California 

NOX and SOX sources within these 

measurements. When combined, these 

2002 estimates of California’s 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

out-of-state Class I areas suggest that 

California emissions are responsible for 

only a very small part of existing 

visibility impairment at out-of-state 

Class I areas. These base year estimates, 

however, do not reflect future 

reductions in California’s emissions 

inventory through 2018. 

To conclude, the state has provided 

an emissions inventory of natural and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13954 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

18The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

19The final version of this table may be found in 

the technical supplement to the SIP submitted on 

June 9, 2010. 

20 June 2010 supplement, August 4, 2009 letter 

from Alan J. De Salvio, Mojave Desert Air Quality 

Management District to Karen Magliano, California 

Air Resources Board with attachment. 21 Ibid. 22See California Energy Commission San 

Francisco Electric Reliability Project Power Plant 

Licensing Case Docket Number 04–AFC–1. (http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/sanfrancisco/ 

index.html) 

23See Revised Table 5–2 (March 2010 version) in 

attachments to June 2010 supplement. 

anthropogenic sources that contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

California estimated stationary, area, 

and mobile sources emissions for the 

required base year, 2002, and for 2018. 

Also, with the WRAP, the state did 

source apportionment analyses of 

visibility impairment to determine the 

relative contributions of haze causing 

pollutants in Class I areas, both inside 

and outside of California. We found 

these analyses to be valid and 

technically correct. (See WRAP TSD.) 

Consequently, we propose to find that 

the state has met the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) and (d)(4)(v). 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Evaluation 

California is required to evaluate the 

use of best available retrofit technology 

(BART) controls at 26 types of major 

stationary sources 18 built between 1962 

and 1977 that have the potential to emit 

250 tons or more of any pollutant and 

may reasonably be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area. CAA 

Section 169A(b)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 

51.308(e). The state must submit a list 

of all BART-eligible sources within the 

state, and a determination of BART 

controls, including emission limitations 

and schedules for compliance, for those 

sources subject to BART. Each source 

subject to BART is required to install 

and operate BART, as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after EPA approval of the statewide 

regional haze SIP revision. CAA Section 

169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within a state’s boundaries. 

BART eligible sources are those sources 

which have the potential to emit 250 

tons per year or more of a visibilityimpairing air pollutant, were put in 

place between August 7, 1962 and 

August 7, 1977 and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 

specifically listed source categories. 

40 CFR 51.301. California assumed that 

any source meeting the emission criteria 

which fell into the 26 listed source 

categories was BART-eligible unless 

there was adequate documentation to 

verify that the source was not put into 

place during the time period defined in 

the RHR. This analysis yielded a list of 

28 sources, found in Table 5–2 of the 

plan.19 Three of the sources identified 

in this table were determined to have 

shut down: The BART-eligible units at 

the TXI Cement plant in Oro Grande; 20

the Spreckels Sugar plant in Mendota; 21

and, the Mirant electric generating 

station in San Francisco.22 These 

sources have shutdown and/or 

decommissioned their BART eligible 

sources and so were eliminated from 

further review by ARB.23

2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility 

Impairment 

The second phase of the BART 

determination process is to identify 

those BART-eligible sources that may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

any Class I area and are, therefore, 

subject to BART. As explained above, 

EPA has issued guidelines that provide 

states with guidance for addressing the 

BART requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix Y; see also, 70 FR 39104 (July 

6, 2005). The BART Guidelines describe 

how states may consider exempting 

some BART-eligible sources from 

further BART review based on 

dispersion modeling showing that the 

sources contribute below a certain 

threshold amount. Generally, states may 

not establish a contribution threshold 

that exceeds 0.5 deciview impact. 70 FR 

39161 (July 6, 2005). 

California established a threshold of 

0.5 deciview. With this threshold, any 

source with an impact of greater than 

0.5 deciview in any Class I area would 

be subject to a BART analysis and, if 

appropriate, BART emissions 

limitations. 

California did not provide an 

explanation for selecting the 0.5 

deciview threshold for determining 

whether a BART source may be 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Based on EPA’s review 

of the BART-eligible sources in 

California, however, EPA is proposing 

to find that a 0.5 dv threshold is 

appropriate, given the specific facts in 

California. 

EPA’s BART Guidelines recommend 

that states ‘‘consider the number of 

BART sources affecting the Class I areas 

at issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts.’’ 70 FR 

39104, 39161. The BART Guidelines 

also state, ‘‘In general, a larger number 

of BART sources causing impacts in a 

Class I area may warrant a lower 

contribution threshold.’’ Id. An email 

from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, 

California Air Resources Board to Greg 

Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011 

(Suarez-Murias email) included an 

attachment with details about the Class 

I areas nearest to BART sources for 

those BART sources that either showed 

an impact less than 0.5 deciview, or 

were consistent with EPA’s model plant 

analysis. Modeling for the sources in the 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM) program in the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) showed that their collective 

impact would be well below the 0.5 

deciview threshold, therefore further 

documentation regarding the Class I 

areas is not necessary. Table 5 shows 

these details from the Suarez-Murias email. 

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

Source Model 

result 

Emission 

rate [tpy] 

Distance 

[km] Nearest class I area 

Searles Industrial ................................................................................................. 0.208 dv ........ *∼1900 70 Dome Lands WA. 

Big West Refineries ............................................................................................. Model plant ... 313 80 Dome Lands WA. 

Chevron Richmond Refinery ................................................................................ 0.393 dv ........ *∼1900 30 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Conoco Phillips Refinery Rodeo .......................................................................... 0.366 dv ........ *∼2200 40 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Tesoro Refinery Martinez ..................................................................................... 0.069 dv ........ *∼500 50 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (Martinez) .................................................................. 0.092 dv ........ ∼700 50 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Shell Refinery Martinez ........................................................................................ 0.169 dv ........ *∼1100 50 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Valero Refinery Benicia ....................................................................................... 0.291 dv ........ *∼7700 50 Pt. Reyes NS. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13955 

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

Continued 

Source Model 

result 

Emission 

rate [tpy] 

Distance 

[km] Nearest class I area 

Mirant Pittsburg .................................................................................................... Model plant ... 559 74 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Mirant Antioch ...................................................................................................... Model plant ... 277 79 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant Ventura ..................................................................... Model plant ... 314 48 San Gabriel WA. 

So Cal Gas ........................................................................................................... Model plant ... 212 52 San Gabriel WA. 

Coolwater Reliant Dagget .................................................................................... 0.489 dv ........ *∼3100 70 San Gorgonio WA. 

Reliant .................................................................................................................. Model plant ... 659 70 San Rafael WA. 

JR Simplot Lathrop .............................................................................................. Model plant ... 600 101 Yosemite NP. 

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

Table 5 shows that there are three 

Class I areas affected by multiple BARTeligible sources that California has 

determined are not subject to BART: 

Dome Lands WA, San Gabriel WA, and 

Point Reyes NS. The Dome Lands WA 

is impacted by two BART-eligible 

sources. The Searles Industrial source 

was modeled to have a 0.208 deciview 

effect, which is well below the 0.5 

deciview threshold. The Big West 

Refineries plant is well within the 

parameters of the EPA model plant. 

Furthermore, since it has a lower 

emission rate than Searles Industrial 

and is further from the Dome Lands 

Class I area, it is reasonable to assume 

that Big West Refineries maximum 

contribution to visibility impairment is 

also well below the 0.5 deciview 

threshold. The San Gabriel WA is also 

affected by two BART-eligible sources. 

Each source is well below the EPA 

model plant parameters and both are 

unlikely to have a significant effect on 

visibility at that Class I area. 

The Point Reyes NS is affected by 

several BART-eligible sources that 

California has determined are not 

subject to BART. California’s analysis, 

however, supports its claim that these 

sources are not causing visibility 

impairment at Point Reyes NS. 

Appendix B to the CRHP shows that 

visibility impairment on the worst 20 

percent of days at Point Reyes NS is 

caused primarily by nitrate (39.59%), 

sea salt (21.86%) and sulfate (14.54%). 

(CRHP, page B–105) Sea salt is clearly 

non-anthropogenic. According to the 

WRAP source apportionment study 

relied upon for the CRHP, nitrate 

extinction on the worst 20 percent of 

days is overwhelmingly from mobile 

sources of NOX, not stationary sources. 

(CRHP, page B–108) The sulfate on the 

worst 20 percent of days at Point Reyes 

NS is primarily from SO2 emitted from 

offshore sources and wildfires in Oregon 

during the 2000–2004 base year period, 

and the base year period contribution 

from California stationary sources is 

relatively small. Moreover, the 

stationary source contribution occurred 

during the baseline period, which was 

before the Valero Refinery in Benicia 

was required to achieve significant SO2

reductions as a result of an EPAnegotiated consent decree. (CRHP, Page 

5–24) In conclusion, based on the 

factors discussed above, the EPA finds 

the 0.5 deciview threshold to be 

appropriate for California. 

The BART Guidelines allow using 

model plants to determine which BART 

eligible sources are not reasonably 

expected to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment. That is, one can 

evaluate the visibility impacts of an 

example facility and apply those results 

to similar facilities. Based on EPA’s 

model plant analysis, we believe that a 

state that has established 0.5 deciview 

as a contribution threshold could 

reasonably exempt from the BART 

review process sources that emit less 

than 500 tons per year of NOX or SO2

(or combined NOX and SO2), as long as 

these sources are located more than 50 

kilometers from any Class I area; and 

sources that emit less than 1000 tons per 

year of NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX

and SO2) that are located more than 100 

kilometers from any Class I area. If a 

state has BART eligible sources that fall 

within these parameters, then it is 

reasonable to assume that these sources 

do not cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas; therefore, 

they are not subject to BART controls. 

California evaluated its remaining 

BART eligible sources and determined 

that only three sources were subject to 

BART. The other sources demonstrated 

that, considering their emissions and 

distance to the nearest Class I area, they 

were not causing or contributing to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas. 

The results of this analysis are shown in 

Table 6. 

TABLE 6—RESULTS OF SUBJECT TO BART ANALYSIS IN CALIFORNIA

BART eligible source Analysis results deciview (dv) 

Tesoro Refinery Martinez ..................................................................................................................................... 0.069 dv. 

Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant Martinez ..................................................................................................................... 0.092 dv. 

Shell Refinery Martinez ........................................................................................................................................ 0.169 dv. 

Searles Industrial .................................................................................................................................................. 0.208 dv. 

Valero Refinery Benicia ........................................................................................................................................ 0.291 dv. 

Conoco Phillips Refinery Rodeo ........................................................................................................................... 0.366 dv. 

Chevron Richmond Refinery ................................................................................................................................ 0.393 dv. 

Coolwater Reliant Dagget ..................................................................................................................................... 0.489 dv. 

BP Refinery (Carson) ........................................................................................................................................... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

California Portland Cement .................................................................................................................................. SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

Chevron Refinery (El Segundo) ........................................................................................................................... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

Conoco Refinery (Carson) .................................................................................................................................... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

Conoco Refinery (Wilmington) .............................................................................................................................. SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

Exxon Refinery (Torrance) ................................................................................................................................... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

Tesoro Refinery (Wilmington) ............................................................................................................................... SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

Ultramar Refinery .................................................................................................................................................. SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13956 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

24For our detailed review and discussion, please 

see ‘‘Technical Support Document for USEPA’s 

Review of the California Regional Haze Plan’s 

Modeling for the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Evaluation’’, Prepared by USEPA Region 9, 

March 4, 2011 (BART TSD). 

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

BART eligible source Analysis results deciview (dv) 

Big West Refineries .............................................................................................................................................. Comparable to EPA model plant. 

JR Simplot Lathrop ............................................................................................................................................... Comparable to EPA model plant. 

Mirant Power Plant (Antioch) ................................................................................................................................ Comparable to EPA model plant. 

Mirant Power Plant (Pittsburg) ............................................................................................................................. Comparable to EPA model plant. 

Reliant Ventura County ........................................................................................................................................ Comparable to EPA model plant. 

Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (South Coast) ............................................................................................................ Comparable to EPA model plant. 

So Cal Gas ........................................................................................................................................................... Comparable to EPA model plant. 

Cabrillo Encina Plant ............................................................................................................................................ Subject to BART. 

Duke Energy South Bay ....................................................................................................................................... Subject to BART. 

Dynegy Moss Landing .......................................................................................................................................... Subject to BART. 

Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011. 

The air control districts with 

authority over these sources modeled 

the visibility impacts of the first eight 

sources on Table 5 using CalPUFF 

(Tesoro Refinery Martinez through 

Coolwater Reliant Dagget). These 

sources were modeled individually and 

the results indicated that they do not 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas. The next 

nine sources were modeled collectively 

by the SCAQMD. All of these sources 

are part of the RECLAIM emissions cap 

and trade system in the SCAQMD. The 

SCAQMD modeled all of the sources in 

RECLAIM (including these nine 

sources) and demonstrated that the 

entire universe of sources in RECLAIM 

has an aggregate impact of less than a 

0.244 deciview on Class I areas. 

Therefore, each individual source must 

have a less than 0.244 deciview impact 

on visibility at Class I areas, meaning 

none of them cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at these protected 

areas. The EPA evaluated the modeling 

analyses conducted by all the districts 

and found them to be valid and 

technically correct.24 (See BART TSD.) 

The next seven sources used the EPA 

model plant analysis described 

previously in this section. The details 

on these sources are shown in Table 7. 

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

Source 

Emissions 

(tons per 

year) 

Distance 

(kilometers) 

Class I area 

affected 

Big West Refineries ......................................................................................................................... 313 80 Domelands WA. 

JR Simplot Lathrop .......................................................................................................................... 600 101 Yosemite NP. 

Mirant Power Plant Antioch ............................................................................................................. 277 79 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Mirant Power Plant Pittsburg ........................................................................................................... 559 74 Pt. Reyes NS. 

Reliant Ventura County .................................................................................................................... 659 70 San Rafael WA. 

Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (South Coast) ....................................................................................... 314 48 San Gabriel WA. 

So Cal Gas ...................................................................................................................................... 212 52 San Gabriel WA. 

Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011. 

EPA’s model plant analysis indicated 

that a source emitting less than 500 tons 

per year (tpy) of combined NOX and 

SOX would not contribute to visibility 

impairment if it were located more than 

50 kilometers from the nearest Class I 

area. Four of the sources in Table 6 emit 

less than 500 tpy and three of them are 

more than 50 kilometers away from the 

nearest Class I area. The Rhodia Sulfuric 

Acid Plant is 48 kilometers from the San 

Gabriel Wilderness Area. However, 

since its emission rate is well below 500 

tons per year, this source is also 

consistent with the model plant 

analysis. The EPA model plant analysis 

also indicated that sources that emit less 

than 1000 tons per year do not 

contribute to visibility impairment if 

they are located more than 100 

kilometers away from the nearest Class 

I area. Three of the sources in Table 6 

exceed 500 tpy but emit less than 1000 

tpy. The JR Simplot Lathrop source is 

over 100 kilometers from the nearest 

Class I area and so is consistent with the 

model plant. The Mirant Power Plant in 

Pittsburg and the Reliant Plant in 

Ventura County are somewhat less than 

100 kilometers from their respective 

Class I areas; however, their emissions 

are significantly less than 1000 tpy. For 

these reasons, we propose to find that 

these are also consistent with the EPA 

model plant analysis. 

3. Sources Already Controlled to BART 

The remaining BART eligible sources, 

Cabrillo Encina Plant, Duke Energy 

(South Bay), and Dynegy Moss Landing 

are subject to BART. These plants are all 

natural gas burning electric generating 

units. Since these sources burn natural 

gas, their SOX emissions are not 

significant with respect to visibility. 

NOX emissions are the primary concern, 

considering visibility impairment. Each 

of these sources already control NOX

emissions with selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) technology. This 

technology is recognized as the Best 

Available Control Technology for 

natural gas burning electric generating 

units and is required on most new 

sources of this type. As such, SCR 

represents BART for these sources. 

To conclude, California evaluated the 

required universe of sources for 

applicability of BART controls using the 

criteria in the RHR and the BART 

Guidance. The state found that three 

sources were eligible for the application 

of BART controls: Cabrillo Encina Plant, 

Duke Energy (South Bay), and Dynegy 

Moss Landing. After a review of the 

control technologies in use at these 

BART eligible plants, California found 

that BART level controls were already 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13957 

25The RHR also requires that the state provide to 

the public an assessment of the number of years it 

will take to reach natural visibility conditions. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). California’s estimates were 

noticed to the public during the public review and 

comment process prior to ARB’s adoption of the 

CRHP. 

in place at the sources with a potential 

to impair visibility at Class I areas. We 

propose to find that California has 

conducted a BART evaluation 

consistent with the requirement in 40 

CFR 51.308(e). 

F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

The RHR requires states to establish a 

goal, expressed in deciviews, for each 

Class I area within the state that 

provides for reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

by 2064. The RPG must improve 

visibility for the most impaired days, 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the least impaired days over the 

period of the SIP. 

The RPGs for the CRHP show 

visibility improvement by 2018 for both 

‘‘worst 20 percent of days’’ and ‘‘best 20 

percent of days’’ in all Class I areas 

when compared to the baseline ‘‘worst’’ 

and ‘‘best’’ days. See Table 8. 

TABLE 8—BASELINE VERSUS 2018 VISIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR CALIFORNIA CLASS I AREAS

[Grouped by respective IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews] 

Class I area (NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, 

NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore) 

2000–04 

Baseline worst 

haze days 

2018 Estimated worst 

haze days 

(RPG) 

2018 URP 

estimate 

2000–04 

Baseline best 

haze days 

2018 Estimated best 

haze days 

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

Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly Middle Eel WA (TRIN 

monitor) ............................................................................ 17.4 16.4 15.2 3.4 3.2 

Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor) ............ 15.1 14.4 13.4 3.2 3.0 

Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes WA ...

(LAVO monitor) .................................................................... 14.2 13.3 12.6 2.7 2.5 

Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor) ................. 12.6 12.3 11.1 2.5 2.5 

Hoover WA (HOOV monitor) ............................................... 12.9 12.5 11.7 1.4 1.3 

Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor) ...................... 17.6 16.7 15.3 3.4 3.2 

Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS monitor) ................................................................................... 15.5 14.9 13.6 2.3 2.1 

Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor) ................ 25.4 22.7 21.2 8.8 8.1 

Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor) ...................................... 19.4 18.1 16.6 5.1 4.7 

Redwood NP (REDW monitor) ............................................ 18.5 17.8 17.4 6.1 5.8 

Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor) ........................................ 22.8 21.3 21.2 10.5 10.1 

Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor) ....................... 18.5 16.7 16.0 8.9 8.1 

San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor) .......................................... 18.8 17.3 16.2 6.4 5.8 

San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor) ............ 19.9 17.4 16.9 4.1 4.8 

San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor) ........ 22.2 19.9 18.7 5.4 5.0 

Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor) ............................................ 23.5 21.6 19.8 9.6 8.9 

Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor) ........................................ 19.6 17.9 16.7 6.1 5.7 

Sources: Table 6–1, page 6–10; and Table 7–2, page 7–10, CRHP. 

Also, as required by the RHR, 

California estimated the time each Class 

I area would take to reach natural 

conditions under the RPG rate of 

visibility improvement (see Table 1, 

column E). While some of the time 

estimates are close to the 2064 natural 

conditions goal, none of the estimates 

show that natural conditions will be 

achieved by 2064 in California’s Class I 

areas. 

1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

Because California’s RPG estimates 

provide for a rate of improvement in 

visibility slower than the rate needed to 

show attainment of natural conditions 

by 2064, the RHR requires the state to 

demonstrate why its RPGs are 

reasonable and why a rate of progress 

leading to attainment by 2064 is not 

reasonable.25 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 

The RHR specifies that RPGs, as well as 

the demonstration of the reasonableness 

of attainment beyond 2064, are to be 

evaluated through the use of four 

factors: Costs of compliance; time 

necessary for compliance; energy and, 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; and remaining useful life 

of any potentially affected sources. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A); 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 

As explained below, we believe the 

CRHP demonstrates these four factors 

and that the RPGs in the plan are 

reasonable. 

California’s RPGs are projected 

visibility levels based on atmospheric 

modeling performed by the WRAP. The 

WRAP modeling was based, in part, on 

California’s 2018 emissions projections 

derived from the emissions reductions 

described in California’s 2018 Progress 

Strategy. California’s 2018 Progress 

Strategy is based on the identification of 

the major drivers of haze on worst days, 

as well as the sources of these pollutants 

and their precursors. In particular, the 

2018 Progress Strategy predicts 

significant reductions in the nitrate 

component of haze from NOX emission 

reductions achieved by California’s 

mobile source control programs. 

Weighted emissions, or back trajectory 

analyses, along with predictive 

modeling show that substantial 

reductions in nitrate, roughly 50 percent 

at every Class I area, can be achieved 

through mobile source NOX emission 

reductions in the 2018 Progress 

Strategy. (CRHP, page 7–3) 

The analysis of the sources of haze 

from section 4.7 of CRHP shows that the 

primary anthropogenic source of haze 

within California is NOX emissions. 

Therefore, the largest impact California 

can make to improve visibility is by 

reducing anthropogenic sources of the 

NOX emissions that lead to the 

formation of nitrates, especially, NOX

from mobile sources. According to 

ARB’s 2018 emissions inventory, 

California will have reduced NOX

emissions by 47 percent compared to 

2002, with the majority of those 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13958 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

26Please see CRHP Chapter 4, Section 4.7, 

Regional Analysis of Source Categories. 

emission reductions coming from 

mobile sources. The 2018 emissions 

inventory also shows that reductions in 

mobile source SOX emissions will offset 

increases in other source categories. 

(See Table 2) In addition, the 2018 

emissions inventory predicts reductions 

in organic carbon PM and mobile source 

elemental carbon PM emissions. 

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

Pollutant 

2002 Anthropogenic emissions 

inventory 

(tpy) 

2018 Anthropogenic emissions 

inventory 

(tpy) 

Percentage 

change 

NOX ............................................................................................................................ 1,127,359 592,688 ¥47 

SO2 ............................................................................................................................ 62,954 63,566 1 

VOC ........................................................................................................................... 908,151 882,313 ¥3 

NH3 ............................................................................................................................ 225,157 223,916 ¥1 

PM Coarse ................................................................................................................. 279,149 311,518 12 

Fine PM OC ............................................................................................................... 64,492 56,307 ¥13 

Fine PM EC ............................................................................................................... 28,397 18,927 ¥33 

Other PM Fine ........................................................................................................... 67,667 69,262 2 

California also evaluated all source 

categories that could reasonably be 

expected to contribute to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas.26 This 

analysis considered, for each sub-region, 

the species contributing to haze and the 

source categories responsible for 

anthropogenic emissions of precursors 

to those species. For example, in the 

Sierra Nevada mountain range, nitrate 

pollution accounts for 17 percent of 

light extinction on the most impaired 

days of the baseline period. Because 

nitrate is the predominant 

anthropogenic pollutant in this area and 

most of the emissions are from within 

the state, California examined the 

anthropogenic sources of NOX in that 

area. A PSAT analysis indicated that 76 

percent of those emissions were from 

mobile sources. California also 

considered SO2 emissions, which 

comprise 14 percent of light extinction 

on the most impaired days; 45 percent 

of these emissions were shown by PSAT 

to be from outside the modeling domain 

while 22 percent were from within 

California. California examined these 

sources and demonstrated that they 

were already reasonably controlled. 

(CRHP, Chapter 4, Section 4.7) 

In addition, through the state’s efforts 

to attain and maintain the Federal and 

State health-based air quality standards, 

the state asserts that every reasonable 

measure is included in the state’s 2018 

Progress Strategy underlying the RPGs 

for Class I areas. 

EPA also notes that there is a degree 

of uncertainty, due to wildfires and 

biogenic emissions, in the values 

representing baseline and natural 

conditions. 

Furthermore, as explained in the 

EPA’s RPG Guidance, the 2018 URP 

estimate is not a presumptive target, and 

RPGs may be greater, lesser, or 

equivalent to the glide path. The glide 

path to 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. Given 

the strenuous efforts needed in 

California to achieve the emission 

reductions described in Tables 2 and 9, 

the resulting 2018 RPGs, and the 

constraints and uncertainties described 

above, we believe it would be 

unreasonable to require the CRHP to 

meet the 2018 URP estimates. 

Consequently, we propose to find that 

the state has demonstrated that its 2018 

RPGs are reasonable and consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

and 51.308(d)(1)(ii). 

2. Interstate Consultation 

The CRHP, along with its RPGs, is the 

result of California’s continuous 

consultation with thirteen other western 

states through regular meetings of the 

WRAP Working Groups and Forums, via 

conference calls, face-to-face meetings, 

and workshops over the timeframe of 

several years. Through the WRAP 

consultative process, California resolved 

technical tasks and policy decisions 

related to monitoring, emissions, fire 

tracking, application of BART, source 

attribution, modeling, and control 

measure issues. Emissions from other 

western US states are not expected to 

affect California significantly, except for 

smoke from large wildfires. 

Furthermore, there were no comments 

on the CRHP from neighboring states 

regarding the plan’s baseline visibility 

estimates, 2018 visibility projections, 

RPGs, or 2018 Progress Strategy. 

G. Long-Term Strategy 

The RHR requires California to submit 

a long-term strategy addressing regional 

haze visibility impairment for the Class 

I areas affected by the emissions from 

the state. California’s 2018 Progress 

Strategy reflects the measures that were 

included in the 2002 and 2018 emission 

inventories and WRAP analyses that 

produced California’s reasonable 

progress goals. The RHR requires that a 

state’s strategy consider emission 

reductions from on-going control 

programs, construction activity 

mitigation, source retirement and 

replacement, and smoke management 

techniques. Due to California’s severe 

air quality problems, the state has 

emissions control programs that address 

these RHR considerations. 

California’s 2018 Progress Strategy 

(Chapter 4 of the CRHP) includes 

Federal, State and local control 

measures. As reflected in the 2018 

emissions inventory, these control 

measures address the main 

anthropogenic constituents of 

California’s visibility problem: NOX, 

SOX, and directly emitted particulate 

matter emissions. As the RPGs in Table 

8 suggest, the measures in the 2018 

Progress Strategy will improve visibility 

in all California Class I areas. Also, 

implementation of the 2018 Progress 

Strategy is expected to minimize 

California’s existing very small 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

downwind states. The CRHP describes 

ongoing state and local emission control 

measures, as summarized below. 

1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control 

Programs 

Air pollution control programs in 

California are divided among the state, 

multi-county air districts, and county 

level air quality control agencies. 

Among state agencies, ARB is 

responsible for regulating mobile 

sources emissions (except where 

preempted by Federal law) and 

consumer products, developing fuel 

specifications, establishing gasoline 

vapor recovery standards and certifying 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13959 

27For a complete listing of local California air 

district rules within the federally enforceable SIP, 

please see our online database at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region9/air/sips/index.html. This 

database is organized first by state and then local 

agency. The rules are listed by number, title, 

adoption date, and the date the rule was approved 

into the SIP. 

28Examples of local air district rules 

implementing the SMG are as follows: Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Pollution Control District Rule 

501—Agricultural Burning (49 FR 47490 (December 

5, 1984)); adopted in 1992 and amended since, 

SJVAPCD Rule 4103—Open Burning (74 FR 57907 

(November 10, 2009)); SJVAPCD Rule 4106— 

Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction (67 FR 

8894 (February 27, 2002)); and, Northern Sierra Air 

Quality Management District Regulation 3—Open 

Burning (62 FR 48480 (September 16, 1997) and 64 

FR 45170 (August 19, 1999)). 

vapor recovery systems. Local air 

districts have primary responsibility for 

regulating stationary and area wide 

sources. 

a. Mobile Source Programs 

California’s regulation of mobile 

source emissions covers new vehicle 

emissions standards, low polluting fuel 

formulations, and off-road sources such 

as lawn and garden equipment, 

recreational vehicles and boats, and 

construction equipment. With the 

implementation of the 2018 Control 

Strategy, the state predicts that 

reductions from mobile sources will 

occur as the result of several regulatory 

efforts. 

For example, according to the CRHP, 

California’s 2008 low-emission vehicle 

standards and reformulated gasoline 

reduced VOC emissions to less than 50 

pounds per 100,000 miles traveled, and 

predicted reductions for the 2010 model 

year to be approximately 10 pounds per 

100,000 miles. California also points out 

that mobile source organic carbon 

emissions are reduced beyond what is 

required under national regulations. 

(CRHP, page 4–2 to 4–3) 

ARB’s efforts with EPA to regulate 

large diesel, gasoline and liquid 

petroleum gas equipment will result in 

new large off-road equipment that will 

be 98 percent cleaner. These regulations 

will reduce both NOX and elemental 

carbon emissions. (CRHP, page 4–4) 

In addition, ARB has worked with 

EPA to reduce emissions from goods 

movement sources. For example, the 

CRHP estimates that low-sulfur fuel 

requirements will reduce SOX emissions 

from ship auxiliary engines by 96 

percent and new locomotive engines by 

50–60 percent. (CRHP, Table 4–1 and 

discussion, page 4–4) 

ARB plans to reduce emissions from 

smaller engines, such as lawn and 

garden equipment, recreational vehicles, 

and boats, achieving 82–90 percent 

fewer NOX emissions than uncontrolled 

units. (CRHP, Table 4–1, and 

discussion, page 4–4) 

The CRHP describes California’s 

efforts to reduce diesel PM emissions 

since 2000, when California began 

implementing its Diesel Risk Reduction 

Plan, aimed at reducing diesel PM 

emissions by 85 percent by 2020. 

Through engine retrofits and 

replacements, ARB predicts these 

control measures will reduce NOX

emissions as well as diesel PM 

emissions. (CHRP, Section 4.2.3, page 

4–6) The CRHP states that this program 

has already provided visibility benefits 

as shown by elemental carbon trends at 

IMPROVE monitors. In 2013 and 2018, 

the state predicts more visibility 

improvement as related rules adopted 

during the 2000–2004 baseline period 

continue their implementation. (CRHP, 

page 7–4) 

b. Stationary and Area Source 

Regulations by Local Air Agencies 

California’s thirty-five local air 

districts and air quality control agencies 

are primarily responsible for regulating 

emissions from stationary and area-wide 

sources through rules and permitting 

programs. For example, air district 

regulated sources include industrial 

sources like factories, refineries, and 

power plants; commercial sources like 

gas stations, dry cleaners, and paint 

spray booth operations; residential 

sources like fireplaces, water heaters, 

and house paints; and miscellaneous 

non-mobile sources like emergency 

generators. Air districts also inspect and 

test fuel vapor recovery systems to 

check that such systems are operating as 

certified.27

2. Construction Activities 

Many air districts have adopted 

stringent rules to control fugitive dust 

emissions from construction activities. 

These rules include the following 

examples: San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) 

Regulation 8—Fugitive PM–10 

Prohibitions, adopted in 2004 (71 FR 

8461, (February 17, 2006)); and, 

SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust (73 

FR 12639, (March 10, 2008)). 

In July 2007, ARB adopted a 

regulation designed to reduce diesel and 

NOX emissions from the state’s 

estimated 180,000 off-road vehicles 

used in construction, mining, airport 

ground support and other industries. 

These regulations were not adopted in 

time to be considered by the WRAP and 

the state when producing the RPGs; 

however, ARB estimates that by 2020 

‘‘particulate matter will be reduced by 

74 percent and NOX will be reduced by 

32 percent compared to current levels.’’ 

(CRHP, page 4–11) 

3. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

ARB reports that older and high 

polluting sources produce the majority 

of mobile source emissions; as a result, 

California has directed its source 

retirement strategy towards mobile 

sources. California has pursued the 

retirement of engines using incentive 

funding programs together with in-use 

regulations. For example, using the Carl 

Moyer Program, the state has invested 

up to $170 million annually to clean up 

as many as 7,500 older, higher-emitting 

engines, thereby reducing NOX

emissions by as much as 24 tons per 

day. (CRHP, pages 4–11 to 4–12) 

4. Smoke Management Programs 

California’s ‘‘Smoke Management 

Guidelines for Agricultural and 

Prescribed Burning (SMG)’’ is the basis 

for the state’s Smoke Management 

Program. Together, the ARB and the 

local air pollution control districts 

implement the SMG. ARB oversees the 

program and makes daily burn/no burn 

day decisions for each of the air basins 

in the state. In turn, air districts have 

adopted comprehensive smoke 

management programs and regulations 

to implement and enforce the SMG. 

These smoke management programs 

contain requirements for agricultural 

and prescribed burns permits; daily 

burn authorizations; annual reporting; 

registration and smoke management 

plans for prescribed burns.28 According 

to the CRHP, smoke management plans 

must specifically consider Class I Areas 

as sensitive receptors. (CRHP, pages 4– 

12 and 4–13) 

5. Enforceability of Measures in the 

Long-Term Strategy 

The RHR requires that the state’s longterm strategy include enforceable 

measures necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals at every Class 

I area (inside and outside the state) 

affected by emissions from that state. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). California’s RPGs are 

based on the region-wide inventory 

developed by the WRAP states that 

included data for California sources. 

The emissions inventory from California 

was based on rules adopted through 

2004. (CRHP, page 3–1) 

Table 2 of this notice shows changes 

in emissions by pollutant and source 

category between 2002 and 2018. The 

pollutants of concern for visibility 

impairment are NOX, SO2, and VOC (as 

organic carbon precursor). A review of 

Table 2 indicates that moderate 

increases of SO2 and VOC from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13960 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

stationary and area sources are offset by 

significant reductions in emissions from 

mobile sources. Table 2 also shows that 

the reductions in NOX statewide are 

attributable to a decrease in emissions 

from mobile sources of over 530,000 

tons per year. Therefore, the 

enforceability of mobile source 

measures is a critical consideration 

when evaluating the measures necessary 

to achieve the reasonable progress goals. 

California’s mobile source measures 

fall within two categories: Measures for 

which the state has obtained or has 

applied to obtain a waiver of federal 

pre-emption under CAA section 209 

(section 209 waiver measure or waiver 

measure) and those for which the state 

is not required to obtain a waiver (nonwaiver measures). 

EPA’s position on the creditability of 

California’s mobile source control 

measures in SIP attainment 

demonstrations has been addressed in 

previous actions. See EPA’s proposed 

approval and final approval of the SJV 

1–Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 

33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, 

10424 (March 8, 2010). 

EPA recently evaluated California 

mobile source measures as part of our 

November 10, 2010 proposed action on 

the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 plan 

and the San Joaquin Valley portions of 

the revised 2007 state strategy. See, e.g., 

75 FR 74517 (Nov. 10, 2010). In taking 

this action, we described how EPA had 

either approved California’s mobile 

source rules into the SIP, or granted a 

waiver of federal pre-emption under 

CAA section 209. 

Based on this analysis, EPA proposes 

to find that the measures in the CRHP 

are sufficient to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals, as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

To conclude, California has submitted 

a long-term strategy addressing visibility 

impairment due to regional haze within 

Class I areas, both inside and outside of 

the state. Through participation in the 

WRAP, California consulted with 

neighboring states and coordinated its 

2018 Progress Strategy, as well as 

developed and documented the 

technical basis for the 2018 Progress 

Strategy. Within the 2018 Progress 

Strategy, the state has considered and 

addressed measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities, 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules, and smoke management for 

agricultural and forestry practices. The 

state has estimated the 2002 base year 

and 2018 anthropogenic and natural 

source emissions inventory and the 

emission reductions resulting from the 

2018 Progress Strategy’s control 

measures. Consequently, we propose to 

find that California has met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

H. Monitoring Strategy 

According to the CRHP, California 

intends to rely on the IMPROVE 

monitoring program to collect and 

report data for reasonable progress 

tracking for all Class I Areas in the state. 

Because the RHR requires a long-term 

tracking program over a 60-year 

implementation period, the CRHP states 

that California expects the configuration 

of the monitors, sampling site locations, 

laboratory analysis methods and data 

quality assurance, and network 

operation protocols will not change; or, 

if they are changed, any future 

IMPROVE program will remain 

comparable to the one operating during 

the 2000–2004 RHR baseline period. 

Through 2018, the CRHP does not 

specify any additional monitors beyond 

the existing IMPROVE network. Also, 

California will continue to meet the 

requirement to coordinate its CRHP 

monitoring with its monitoring for RAVI 

by participating in the IMPROVE 

monitoring network. Finally, California 

plans to use data reported by the 

IMPROVE program as part of the 

regional technical support analysis tools 

found at the Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS), as well 

as other analysis tools and efforts 

sponsored by the WRAP. (CRHP, page 

9–1) 

To conclude, California has submitted 

a monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing and reporting on regional 

haze visibility impairment in the state’s 

Class I areas. The state will depend on 

the IMPROVE monitoring program to 

collect and report data for tracking 

reasonable progress, as specified in the 

RHR for all Class I areas in the state. The 

state will use data reported by the 

IMPROVE program and the regional 

analysis tools found at the VIEWS. 

Consequently, we propose to find that 

the state has met the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). 

I. Federal Land Manager Consultation 

and Coordination 

The RHR requires states to coordinate 

the development and implementation of 

their visibility protection programs with 

the Federal Land Managers (FLMs). In 

particular, states must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation at least 

sixty days prior to holding any public 

hearing on the SIP. Consultation must 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of visibility 

impairment in any Class I areas, and 

offer recommendations on the 

development of RPGs and strategies to 

address visibility impairment. A state 

must describe in its SIP how it 

addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs and include procedures for 

continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs on program 

implementation. In the future, FLMs 

must have the opportunity for 

consultation with the state on the 

development and review of plan 

revisions and five-year progress reports 

as well as on the implementation of 

other programs that might contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

The CRHP states that California has 

provided a list of ARB contacts to the 

FLMs, as required by the RHR. In 

November 2006, ARB sponsored a 

‘‘Regional Haze Teach-In,’’ with 

participants from several federal 

agencies (the U.S. Forest Service, the 

National Park Service, the Bureau of 

Land Management, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the EPA), and 

interested air districts. ARB staff 

presented and discussed the state’s 

proposed 2018 Progress Strategy and 

RPGs. (CRHP, page 8–5) Subsequently, 

an ARB/Federal Land Managers 

Regional Haze Steering Committee 

(Steering Committee) was formed. The 

participants conducted monthly 

conferences to review progress on 

regional haze planning and to obtain 

input from FLMs. California’s RPGs 

were also discussed during these calls. 

(CRHP, page 8–5) 

Prior to the January 22, 2009 ARB 

adoption hearing, ARB provided the 

FLMs with a draft of the CRHP and 

requested comment. ARB also provided 

a webcast workshop on December 15, 

2008 to allow participation by federal 

land management agency field office 

staff in remote locations. (CRHP, page 

8–6) Appendix F of the CRHP includes 

the FLMs’ official comments, along with 

responses prepared by ARB. 

The CRHP states that California will 

continue to coordinate and consult with 

the FLMs over the course of the 

implementation period. California 

intends to use three existing 

coordination mechanisms for this 

purpose: the Interagency Air and Smoke 

Council, the Air and Land Managers 

Group, and the WRAP. (CRHP, page 

8–7) 

To conclude, beginning in November 

2006, California provided numerous and 

regular opportunities for FLM review of 

the CRHP as it was developed. Prior to 

ARB adoption of the CRHP on January 

22, 2009, ARB provided a 60-day 

comment period for FLMs and a formal 

public comment period beginning 

December 5, 2008, and a videoconferencing forum to solicit FLM 

comment on the final draft CRHP. FLM 

comments and ARB responses were 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 13961 

included with the CRHP in Appendix F. 

In the future, the state will consult and 

coordinate regional haze activities with 

FLMs through three existing venues: 

The Interagency Air and Smoke 

Council, the Air and Land Managers 

Group, and the WRAP. Consequently, 

we propose to find that the state has met 

the FLM coordination and consultation 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

The CRHP states that California will 

perform a mid-course review in 2013 to 

assess progress towards reaching the 

RPGs. California’s mid-course review 

will consider post-2004 control 

measures that were not included in the 

2018 Progress Strategy. The CRHP states 

that the mid-course review will also do 

the following: ‘‘Update natural 

conditions to reflect new information, if 

available; update the RPGs with latest 

WRAP modeling, if appropriate; reevaluate the RPGs to determine if they 

should be adjusted to better reflect 

achievable improvements in visibility, 

as future control measures are adopted 

and implemented; compare the actual 

deciview calculations against progress 

towards reaching the RPGs and the 

uniform rate of progress; assess the 

impact at the monitors from BARTspecific and post-2004 adopted and 

implemented measures; and, evaluate 

the adequacy of the existing CRHP 

elements.’’ (CRHP, Section 9.3, page 

9–2) 

In 2018, California will revise the 

CRHP, following procedures for 

coordination with other western states 

and FLMs. California intends for the 

2018 CRHP revision to include the 

following updates: ‘‘Current calculation 

methodologies for visibility; evaluation 

of the appropriateness of natural 

condition levels and updates, if 

appropriate; current visibility 

conditions for most impaired and least 

impaired days; progress towards natural 

conditions; effectiveness of California’s 

2018 Progress Strategy; affirmation or 

revision of reasonable progress goals; 

updated emission inventories; and, reevaluation of the monitoring strategy.’’ 

(CRHP, Section 9.4, pages 9–2 to 9–3) 

To conclude, California has submitted 

a plan with commitments to provide a 

2013 progress report evaluating the 

January 22, 2009 CRHP and RPGs, as 

well as a 2018 regional haze plan 

revision. Consequently, we propose to 

find that the state has met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

(g). 

V. EPA’s Analysis of How California’s 

Regional Haze Plan Meets Interstate 

Transport Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIP 

revision to contain ‘‘adequate provisions 

* * * prohibiting * * * any source or 

other types of emission activity within 

the State from emitting any air pollutant 

in amounts which will * * * interfere 

with measures required to be included 

in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State * * * to protect 

visibility.’’ EPA is proposing to find that 

the SIP submitted by California to 

address regional haze contains adequate 

provisions to meet the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

with respect to visibility. 

As an initial matter, EPA notes that 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not 

specify explicitly how EPA should 

ascertain whether a state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions from sources in that state 

from interfering with measures required 

in another state to protect visibility. 

Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its 

face, and EPA must interpret this 

provision. 

Our 2006 Guidance recommended 

that a state could meet the visibility 

prong of the transport requirements for 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submitting 

a regional haze SIP, due in December 

2007. EPA’s reasoning was that the 

development of the regional haze SIPs 

was intended to occur in a collaborative 

environment among the states, and that 

through this process states would 

coordinate on emissions controls to 

protect visibility on an interstate basis. 

In fact, in developing their respective 

reasonable progress goals, WRAP states 

consulted with each other through the 

WRAP’s work groups. As a result of this 

process, the common understanding 

was that each state would take action to 

achieve the emissions reductions relied 

upon by other states in their reasonable 

progress demonstrations under the RHR. 

This interpretation is consistent with 

the RHR requirement that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process must include ‘‘all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process.’’ 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

As discussed above in sections IV.F 

and IV.G of this proposed rule, as a 

WRAP member, California developed 

the 2018 Progress Strategy in 

consultation with 13 other WRAP states 

to address regional haze visibility 

impairment in Class I areas affected by 

California emissions. California also 

developed a set of emissions inventories 

reflecting the state’s implementation of 

a broad range of emission control 

measures included in the 2018 Progress 

Strategy. See sections IV.C and IV.G.5 

above for a discussion of these 

emissions inventories and control 

measures. As part of the WRAP’s 

regional consultative process, California 

provided the WRAP with these 

emissions inventories for the WRAP’s 

regional 2018 future year modeling. The 

WRAP projected visibility levels for all 

Class I areas in California and 

neighboring states based on California’s 

projected 2018 emissions inventories 

and the 2018 inventories supplied by 

other WRAP states. Each of the WRAP 

states then developed its regional haze 

plan using these visibility projections. 

As a result, California’s 2018 Progress 

Strategy and projected emissions 

inventories, including the control 

measures upon which they rely, were 

accounted for in the WRAP’s 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations among the member states. 

Each of the WRAP states then developed 

their respective reasonable progress 

goals based upon an understanding that 

California’s implementation of the 

emission control measures included in 

the 2018 Progress Strategy would 

achieve California’s projected 2018 

emissions inventory levels. Thus, the 

following elements of the CRHP ensure 

that emissions from California will not 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals for neighboring states’ Class I 

areas: Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), 

chapter 4 (California 2018 Progress 

Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation). 

We propose to determine that these 

elements of the CRHP adequately 

address California’s apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through the WRAP consultative 

process and, therefore, satisfy the 

requirement in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding measures 

required in other states to protect 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Action 

Because EPA believes the California 

Regional Haze Plan fulfills all the 

relevant requirements of Section 169B 

and the Regional Haze Rule, we are 

proposing to fully approve the plan as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

In sum, we are proposing to find that 

California has met the following 

Regional Haze Rule requirements: The 

state has established baseline visibility 

conditions and reasonable progress 

goals for each of its Class I areas; the 

state has developed a long-term strategy 

with enforceable measures ensuring 

reasonable progress towards meeting the 

Reasonable Progress Goals for the first 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

13962 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ten-year planning period, through 2018; 

the state has addressed adequately the 

application of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology to specific stationary 

sources; the state has an adequate 

regional haze monitoring strategy; the 

state has provided for consultation and 

coordination with federal land managers 

in producing its regional haze plan; and, 

provided for the regional haze plan’s 

future revisions. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

approve California’s 2007 Transport SIP 

and the following specific elements of 

the CRHP as satisfying the CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to 

prohibit emissions that will interfere 

with measures to protect visibility in 

another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS: Chapter 3 

(Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 

(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and, 

chapter 8 (Consultation). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 9, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6003 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0958–201104; FRL– 

9280–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Carolina: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment New Source 

Review; Fine Particulate Matter and 

Nitrogen Oxides as a Precursor to 

Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the South Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the State of South Carolina, through 

the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control (SC 

DHEC), to EPA on December 2, 2010, for 

parallel processing. The proposed SIP 

revision modifies South Carolina’s New 

Source Review (NSR) Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) programs. The proposed 

revision makes two changes for which 

EPA is proposing approval in today’s 

rulemaking. First, the revision 

incorporates NSR provisions for fine 

particulate matter (also known as PM2.5) 

as amended in EPA’s 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5 Rule’’) into the 

South Carolina SIP. Second, the 

proposed revision addresses a PSD 

permitting requirement promulgated in 

the 1997 8–Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) Implementation Rule NSR 

Update Phase II (hereafter referred to as 

the ‘‘Ozone Implementation NSR Update 

or Phase II Rule’’). Both changes in the 

proposed SIP revision are necessary to 

comply with federal regulations related 

to South Carolina’s NSR permitting 

program. EPA is proposing approval of 

the December 2, 2010, proposed SIP 

revision because the Agency has 

preliminarily determined that the 

revisions are in accordance with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA 

regulations regarding NSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–0958 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0958, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0958.’’ EPA’s policy is that all comments 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS