Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27973 

Dated: April 26, 2011. 

Mark S. Ogle, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11808 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0999; FRL–9304–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a request submitted by the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management on November 24, 2010 to 

revise the Indiana State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The submission revises the 

Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) by 

amending and updating the definition of 

‘‘References to the Code of Federal 

Regulations,’’ to refer to the 2009 

edition. The submission revision also 

makes a minor revision to the definition 

of ‘‘Nonphotochemically reactive 

hydrocarbons’’ or ‘‘negligibly 

photochemically reactive compounds’’ 

by deleting an outdated Federal 

Register citation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0999 by one of the following 

methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule, and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: May 3, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11724 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0289, FRL–9305–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Delaware; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Delaware State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Delaware through the 

Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control 

(DNREC) on September 25, 2008 that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) 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. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Regional Haze plan submitted by 

Delaware satisfies the requirements of 

the CAA. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to those provisions of the 

CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve 

this revision as meeting the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0289 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0289, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0289. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made 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 that you 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

27974 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 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, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

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.’’ 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814–2037, or by 

e-mail at 

mailto:lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 25, 2008, the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control submitted a 

revision to its SIP to address Regional 

Haze for the first implementation 

period. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Delaware’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairment 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

5. BART 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust) and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, 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 effects 

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 1 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. 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 35714, July 1, 

1999). 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 2 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’’ (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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27975 

3Albuquerque/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). 

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 

(64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. 

The Regional Haze Rule revised the 

existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established 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 II of this notice. 

The requirement to submit a regional 

haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and the Virgin 

Islands.3 Section 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 effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

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 Mid-Atlantic Region Air 

Management Association (MARAMA), 

the Northeast States for Coordination 

Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and 

the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU) regional 

planning organization. MANE–VU is a 

collaborative effort of state governments, 

tribal governments, and various federal 

agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, 

and other air quality issues in the MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the 

United States. Member States and tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 

and Vermont. 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require 

that within three years of promulgation 

of a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), a State must ensure 

that its SIP, among other requirements, 

‘‘contains 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.’’ 

Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

that such SIP ‘‘meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of (Subchapter I) 

(relating to visibility protection).’’ 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance, 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,’’ recognized the possibility 

that a state could potentially meet the 

visibility portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission 

of a Regional Haze SIP, as required by 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. 

EPA’s 2009 guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ recommended that a state 

could meet such visibility requirements 

through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA’s 

rationale supporting this 

recommendation 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. 

The common understanding was that, as 

a result of this collaborative 

environment, each state would take 

action to achieve the emissions 

reductions relied upon by other states in 

their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the Regional Haze 

Rule. This interpretation is consistent 

with the requirement in the Regional 

Haze Rule 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). 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the Regional Haze Rule, 

recognizes the 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. States 

working together through a regional 

planning process, 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, appropriate regional haze 

SIPs will contain measures that will 

achieve these emissions reductions and 

will meet the applicable visibility 

related requirements of section 

110(a)(2). 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the MANE–VU, all states in 

the MANE–VU 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 

MANE–VU States consulted in the 

development of reasonable progress 

goals, using the products of this 

technical consultation process to codevelop their reasonable progress goals 

for the MANE–VU Class I areas. The 

modeling done by MANE–VU 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 MANE–VU, 

including reductions from BART 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 regional 

haze SIPs that have been prepared by 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

27976 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, 

July 1, 1999). 

the states in the MANE–VU region are 

based, in part, on the emissions 

reductions from nearby states that were 

agreed on through the MANE–VU 

process. 

Delaware submitted a Regional Haze 

SIP on September 25, 2008, to address 

the requirements of the Regional Haze 

Rule. On December 13, 2007, Delaware 

submitted its original 1997 Ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On 

September 16, 2009, Delaware 

submitted a 1997 Ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure submittal 

amendment and an infrastructure SIP 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On the 

September 16, 2009 submittal, Delaware 

indicated that its Regional Haze SIP 

would meet the requirements of the 

CAA, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

regarding visibility for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Delaware also indicated 

it will meet the visibility requirements 

of 110(a)(2)(J), and specifically 

references the Regional Haze SIP 

submitted on September. EPA has 

reviewed Delaware’s Regional Haze SIP 

and, as explained in section IV of this 

action, proposes to find that Delaware’s 

Regional Haze submittal meets the 

portions of the requirements of the CAA 

sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

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 or unit for 

expressing 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.4

The deciview is used in expressing 

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 10-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, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004 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 thencurrent conditions will indicate the 

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 (RPGs) 

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) 10-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 RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27977 

5The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

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, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), 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). 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’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which 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 

(BART) 

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 5 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology’’ 

as determined by the state. Under the 

RHR, states are directed to conduct 

BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ 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 (MW), 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 stated 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. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 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 to be 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 of EPA approval of 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. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 

39104, July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations 

provide that states participating in the 

CAIR cap and trade program under 40 

CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain 

subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 

part 97, do not require affected BART 

eligible electric generating units (EGUs) 

to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4)). Since CAIR is not 

applicable to emissions of PM, states 

were still required to conduct a BART 

analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 

subject to BART for that pollutant. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

27978 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or 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 the contributing states 

in order 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 

consultations between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true 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 Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment; (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. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

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 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the 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 10 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 (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with 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 60 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. Further, 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. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Delaware’s regional haze submittal? 

On September 25, 2008, the Delaware 

DNREC submitted revisions to the 

Delaware SIP to address regional haze as 

required by EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Delaware has no Class I areas within 

its borders, but has been identified as 

influencing the visibility impairment of 

the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27979 

Class I area, located in the State of New 

Jersey. Delaware is responsible for 

developing a regional haze SIP that 

addresses this Class I area, that 

describes its long-term emission 

strategy, its role in the consultation 

processes, and how the SIP meets the 

other requirements in EPA’s regional 

haze regulations. However, since 

Delaware has no Class I areas within its 

borders, Delaware is not required to 

address the following Regional Haze SIP 

elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions, (b) 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and 

(d) RAVI requirements. 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in Section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state to obtain its share of emission 

reductions to support the RPGs 

established by New Jersey, the Class I 

area state. Delaware’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, 

State, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the baseline period 

starting in 2002 until 2018. Delaware 

participated in the MANE–VU regional 

strategy development process. As a 

participant, Delaware supported a 

regional approach towards deciding 

which control measures to pursue for 

regional haze, which was based on 

technical analyses documented in the 

following reports: (a) Contributions to 

Regional Haze in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic United States; (b) 

Assessment of Reasonable Progress for 

Regional Haze in MANE–VU Class I 

Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BARTEligible Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations; and 

(d) Assessment of Control Technology 

Options for BART-Eligible Sources: 

Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial 

Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and 

Pulp Facilities. 

The LTS was developed by Delaware, 

in coordination with MANE–VU, 

identifying the emissions units within 

Delaware that likely have the largest 

impacts currently on visibility at the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

Class I area, estimating emissions 

reductions for 2018, based on all 

controls required under federal and 

State regulations for the 2002–2018 

period (including BART), and 

comparing projected visibility 

improvement with the uniform rate of 

progress for the Brigantine National 

Wildlife Refuge Class I area. 

Delaware’s LTS includes measures 

needed to achieve its share of emissions 

reductions agreed upon through the 

consultation process with New Jersey 

and includes enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established by 

New Jersey for the Brigantine National 

Wildlife Refuge Class I area. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by MARAMA for MANE–VU 

with assistance from Delaware. The 

2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions, 

and assuming emissions growth due to 

projected increases in economic activity 

as well as applying reductions expected 

from federal and State regulations 

affecting the emissions of VOC and the 

visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, 

PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART 

guidelines direct States to exercise 

judgment in deciding whether VOC and 

NH3 impair visibility in their Class I 

area(s). As discussed further in Section 

III.B.3, below. MANE–VU demonstrated 

that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates 

are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass 

and visibility impairment at Class I 

areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

region. It was also determined that the 

total ammonia emissions in the MANE– 

VU region are extremely small. In 

addition, since VOC emissions are 

aggressively controlled through the 

Delaware SIP, the pollutants Delaware 

considered under BART are NOX, PM10, 

PM2.5, and SO2. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources, (2) area sources, (3) off-road 

mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile 

sources. The New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation also 

developed an inventory of biogenic 

emissions for the entire MANE–VU 

region. Stationary point sources are 

those sources that emit greater than a 

specified tonnage per year, depending 

on the pollutant, with data provided at 

the facility level. Stationary area sources 

are those sources whose individual 

emissions are relatively small, but due 

to the large number of these sources, the 

collective emissions from the source 

category could be significant. Off-road 

mobile sources are equipment that can 

move but do not use the roadways. Onroad mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Delaware anticipate 

will reduce emissions between the 

baseline period and 2018. Emission 

reductions from these control programs 

were projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 in the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge. To 

assess emissions reductions from 

ongoing air pollution control programs, 

BART, and reasonable progress goals 

MANE–VU developed 2018 emissions 

projections called Best and Final. The 

emissions inventory provided by the 

State of Delaware for the Best and Final 

2018 projections is based on adopted 

and enforceable requirements. 

The ongoing air pollution control 

programs relied upon by Delaware for 

the Best and Final projections include 

Delaware’s Regulation 1144—Control of 

Stationary Generator Emissions; 

Regulation 1146—Electric Generating 

Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation; 

Regulation 1148—Control of Stationary 

Combustion Turbine Electric Generating 

Unit Emissions; Regulation 1142, 

Section 1—Control of NOX Emissions 

from Industrial Boilers; Regulation 

1142, Section 2—Control of NOX

Emissions from Industrial Boilers and 

Process Heaters at Petroleum Refineries; 

Regulation 1124, Section 46—Crude Oil 

Lightering Operations; a Valero Refinery 

consent decree; the NOX SIP Call; NOX

and/or VOC reductions from the control 

rules in the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 

SIPs for Delaware; NOX OTC 2001 

Model Rule for Industrial, Commercial, 

and Institutional (ICI) Boilers; Federal 

2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards 

for non-road trucks and buses; Federal 

Tier 2 tailpipe controls for the on-road 

vehicles; Federal large spark ignition 

and recreational vehicle controls; and 

EPA’s non-road diesel rules. The 

estimated emissions reductions 

resulting from Delaware’s EGU 

Regulations 1144, 1146, and 1148 are 

75% for SO2 and 57% for NOX from 

2002 base year. 

Delaware also relied on emission 

reductions from various federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules in the 

development of the 2018 emission 

inventory projections. These MACT 

rules include the combustion turbine 

and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines MACT, the industrial boiler and 

process heaters MACT and the 2-, 4-, 

7-, and 10-year MACT standards. 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District 

Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

27980 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250. 

and remand of the Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule.6 This MACT was vacated 

since it was directly affected by the 

vacatur and remand of the Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

(CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA proposed 

a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to 

address the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 

FR 32006) and issued a final rule on 

March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). 

Delaware’s modeling included emission 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule. Delaware did not 

redo its modeling analysis when the 

rule was re-issued. However, the 

expected reductions in SO2 and PM are 

small relative to the Delaware inventory. 

Therefore, EPA finds the expected 

reductions of the new rule acceptable 

since the final rule requires compliance 

by 2014, it provides Delaware time to 

assure the required controls are in place 

prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018. In 

addition, the RHR requires that any 

resulting differences between emissions 

projections and actual emissions 

reductions that may occur will be 

addressed during the five-year review 

prior to the next 2018 regional haze SIP. 

Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Delaware. The 

2018 estimated emissions include 

emission growth as well as emission 

reductions due to ongoing emission 

control strategies, BART, and reasonable 

progress goals. 

TABLE 1—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR DELAWARE IN TONS PER YEAR

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 4,755 16,345 3,666 4,217 196 73,744 

Area .......................................................................................................... 15,519 2,608 3,204 13,039 13,279 1,588 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 10,564 21,341 415 581 903 584 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 8,010 16,227 926 1,021 5 3,983 

Biogenic ................................................................................................... 46,343 990 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................. 85,191 57,511 8,211 18,858 14,383 79,899 

TABLE 2—2018 EMISSION SUMMARY FOR DELAWARE ‘‘BEST AND FINAL’’ IN TONS PER YEAR

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 2,104 16,587 3,692 4,437 210 16,707 

Area .......................................................................................................... 13,066 3,014 3,073 10,500 13,342 380 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 5,037 5,917 191 202 1,328 128 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 5,652 14,631 808 896 6 3,296 

Biogenic ................................................................................................... 46,343 990 0 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................. 72,202 41,139 7,764 16,035 14,886 20,511 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast states and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional 

haze regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid 

model that was primarily used to 

determine the attribution of sulfate 

species in the Eastern U.S. via the 

species-tagging scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual states’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU states (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and states adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-002), 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27981 

April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ 

eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of Delaware 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

develop the glidepath and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR, 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA accepts the MANE–VU 

technical modeling to support the LTS 

and determine visibility improvement 

for the uniform rate of progress because 

the modeling system was chosen and 

used according to EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE– 

VU model performance procedures and 

results, and that the CMAQ is an 

appropriate tool for the regional haze 

assessments for the Delaware LTS and 

regional haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 

percent worst visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment, demonstrated 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region. Sulfate particles 

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as 

or more than 80 percent on the haziest 

days. In particular, for the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area, on 

the 20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, sulfate accounted for 66 

percent of the particle extinction. After 

sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently 

accounts for the next largest fraction of 

light extinction. Organic carbon 

accounted for 13 percent of light 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days for Brigantine, followed 

by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 

light extinction. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Since the State of Delaware does not 

have a Class I area, it is not required to 

establish RPGs. However, Delaware has 

been identified as influencing the 

visibility impairment of the Brigantine 

National Wildlife Refuge Class I area, 

located in the State of New Jersey. As 

such, Delaware participated in 

consultations to discuss the reasonable 

progress goals being considered by New 

Jersey for the affected Class I area. As a 

result, the state of New Jersey adopted 

four RPGs that will provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility: Timely 

implementation of BART requirements; 

a 90 percent reduction in SO2 emissions 

from each of the EGU stacks identified 

by MANE–VU comprising a total of 167 

stacks (5 are located in Delaware); 

adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy; and continued evaluation of 

other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. 

In order to address a timely 

implementation of BART, as described 

in Section III B. 5. of this notice, 

Delaware’s Regulation 1146—Electric 

Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant 

Regulation was determined to be better 

than BART for NOX and SO2 emissions. 

The first phase of the emission limits 

became effective in 2009 and second 

phase will become effective in 2012. 

The BART limitation will become 

effective no later than January 1, 2013, 

for the PM control strategies identified 

in Section III.B.5.c. 

States were required to reduce SO2

emissions from the highest emission 

stacks in the eastern U.S. by 90 percent 

or if it was infeasible to achieve that 

level of reduction, an alternative had to 

be identified which could include other 

point sources. Delaware’s Conective 

Edge Moor Unit 5 and NRG Indian River 

Units 1–4 are five of the 167 units 

identified by MANE–VU as having the 

highest emissions in the eastern United 

States. The 2002 base year SO2

emissions from these five units are 

22,121 tons per year. A 90% SO2

emission reduction of these five units 

would result in 19,909 tons per year. 

However, the 2018 SO2 emission 

reductions that resulted from the 

implementation of Regulation 1146 for 

these five units is 16,662 tons per year. 

These reductions are not enough to 

satisfy the 90% emission reduction from 

the 2002 baseline requirements. 

However, Delaware considered all of the 

emission reductions from all the other 

units obtained through the 

implementation of Regulation 1146— 

Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant 

Regulation and this resulted in 23,826 

tons per year, which produced a surplus 

of 3,917 tons per year of SO2 emission 

reductions. 

The low sulfur fuel oil strategy has 

four requirements for the State of 

Delaware. These requirements are to 

reduce the distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur 

by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) 

no later than 2012, #4 residual oil to 

0.25% sulfur by weight no later than 

2012, #6 residual oil to 0.3–0.5% sulfur 

by weight no later than 2012, and 

further reduce the sulfur content of 

distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2016. Table 

3 shows the SO2 emission reductions 

that would result from the 

implementation of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy in Delaware compared to the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

27982 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

existing currently implemented 

regulations. 

TABLE 3—REASONABLE PROGRESS GOAL—LOW SULFUR FUEL OIL STRATEGY

Low sulfur fuel oil strategy 

2018 SO2 emissions 

reductions (TPY) based 

on the low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy request 

2018 SO2 emissions 

increase/reduction (TPY) 

based on existing 

control measure 

Residual Fuel Oil (assumes 0.5% sulfur) ................................................................................ 1,445 ¥1271 

Distillate (15 ppm sulfur) .......................................................................................................... 1,205 95 

Total .................................................................................................................................. 2,650 ¥1,176 

As noted in Table 3, Delaware has a 

deficiency of 1,176 tons per year of SO2

emissions. However, as noted above 

Delaware has a surplus of SO2 emission 

reductions of 3,917 tons per year 

resulting from the implementation of 

Regulation 1146. This surplus accounts 

for the SO2 emission reductions needed 

to meet the requirements of the low 

sulfur fuel strategy. 

Delaware identified several measures 

that demonstrate their efforts to 

continued evaluation of other control 

measure to reduce SO2 and NOX. 

Delaware’s Executive Order 31 requires 

their Energy Task Force to expand the 

diversity of fuels used to meet 

Delaware’s current and future energy 

resources, develop conservation 

programs to reduce the need to build 

more electric generation facilities, 

ensure that energy infrastructure will 

meet Delaware’s future needs for 

efficiently transporting energy 

resources, and encourage producers of 

clean energy technologies and 

producers of energy efficient products to 

locate their business operations in 

Delaware. 

5. BART 

BART is an element of Delaware’s 

LTS. The BART RH requirement 

consists of three components: (a) 

Identification of all the BART eligible 

sources; (b) an assessment of whether 

the BART eligible sources are subject to 

BART; and (c) the determination of the 

BART controls. 

The first component of a BART 

evaluation is to identify all the BART 

eligible sources. The BART eligible 

sources were identified by utilizing the 

criteria in the BART Guidelines as 

follows: 

• Determine whether one or more 

emissions units at the facility fit within 

one of the 26 categories listed in the 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158–39159); 

• Determine whether the emission 

unit(s) was in existence on August 7, 

1977 and begun operation after August 

6, 1962; 

• Determine whether potential 

emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 from 

subject units are 250 tons or more per 

year. 

The BART guidelines recommend 

addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as 

visibility-impairment pollutants and 

leave it up to the discretion of states to 

evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions. 

Because of the lack of tools available to 

estimate emissions and subsequently 

model VOC and ammonia effects on 

visibility, and because Delaware is 

aggressively addressing VOCs through 

its ozone SIPs, Delaware determined 

that SO2, NOX and PM10/2.5 are the only 

reasonable contributing visibility 

impairing pollutants to target under 

BART. Delaware identified four BART 

eligible sources (consisting of five 

emission units). One of the four sources 

is a steel mill and the other three 

sources are electric generating units as 

described in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—DELAWARE’S BART ELIGIBLE SOURCES

Facility and unit Plant capacity in 

megawatts 

Unit capacity in 

megawatts Pollutants Location 

NGR Indian River—Unit 3 ........ < 750 ............................... 177 .................................. SO2, NOX, PM ................. Millsboro. 

City of Dover, McKee Run— 

Unit 3.

> 750 ............................... 114 .................................. SO2, NOX, PM ................. Dover. 

Conectiv Edge Moor—Unit 4 

and Unit 5.

> 750 ............................... 177 and 446 .................... SO2, NOX, PM ................. Wilmington. 

Ezrac Claymont Steel—Electric 

Arc Furnace and Reheater.

Not Applicable ................. Not Applicable ................. SO2, NOX, PM ................. Claymont. 

The second component of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BART 

eligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area 

are subject to BART. As discussed in the 

BART guidelines, a state may choose to 

consider all BART eligible sources to be 

subject to BART (70 FR 39.161). 

Consistent with the MANE–VU Board’s 

decision in June 2004 that because of 

the collective importance of BART 

sources, BART determinations should 

be made by the MANE–VU states for 

each BART eligible source. Delaware 

identified each of its BART eligible 

sources as subject to BART. 

One of the BART eligible facilities in 

Delaware the Ezrac Claymont Steel, is a 

relatively small emissions source with 

potential emissions that exceeded the 

statutory threshold of 250 tons per year 

or more, but the actual emissions of 

visibility impairing pollutants of well 

under 250 tons per year. The steel mill 

requested a limit on its potential to 

emit, to bring its emissions under 250 

tons per year threshold for BART 

sources. Delaware established federally 

enforceable terms and conditions in a 

Title V permit for the Reheat Furnace 

and Electric Arc Furnace at Evraz 

Claymont Steel Mill that limit the 

potential to emit for SO2, NOX, and 

PM10 to less than 250 tons per year. In 

the future if Evrac Claymont Steel 

request an increase in NOX, SO2 and PM 

emissions greater than 250 tons per year 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27983 

of any one of these pollutants the 

facility would become subject to BART. 

The final component of a BART 

evaluation is making BART 

determinations for all BART subject 

sources. 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. Section 

(e)(2) of the Regional Haze Rule 

provides that a State may opt to 

implement an emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure 

rather than to require sources subject to 

BART to install, operate, and maintain 

BART. To do so, the State must 

demonstrate that the emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure 

will achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the 

installation and operation of BART. 

The three sources in Delaware that the 

State found to be subject to BART are 

EGUs. As discussed below, Delaware 

chose to address the BART requirements 

for SO2 and NOX for these sources 

through an alternative program that 

limits emissions from all coal-fired and 

residual oil-fired electric generating 

units with a nameplate of 25 MW or 

greater. As this alternative program does 

not address PM emissions, Delaware 

conducted BART analyses for PM for 

the three sources subject to BART. 

Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides 

In order to determine appropriate 

NOX and SO2 emission rates for 

inclusion in Regulation 1146, Delaware 

collected guidance and information 

from a number of sources to assist in its 

evaluation of appropriate emissions 

limits. The methods Delaware used to 

develop Regulation 1146 incorporate 

many of the criteria used in the 5 factor 

analyses required by the Regional Haze 

Rule and included the following: 

(1) Control technology effectiveness; 

(2) capital costs; (3) complexity with 

regards to application on cycling units; 

(4) changes in plant auxiliary loads; 

(5) impact on plant operations and 

flexibility; (6) operation and 

maintenance costs; (7) size of the 

affected units; and (8) expected 

remaining operating life of the affected 

units. 

Of the eight units subject to 

Delaware’s Regulation 1146, four have 

been identified as BART units. 

Regulation 1146 incorporates emissions 

rate limitations based on a suite of 

emission reduction technology 

capabilities, but do not specify or 

require the installation of any particular 

emission reduction technology or suite 

of technologies. Table 5 shows Delaware 

promulgated emission rate limitations 

for NOX and SO2 in Regulation 1146. 

TABLE 5—REGULATION 1146 EMISSION RATE LIMITATIONS

2009 2012 

NOX—Coal and Residual Oil Fired EGU’s ....... 0.15 lb/MMBTU ................................................ 0.125 lb/MMBTU. 

SO2—Coal Fired EGU’s .................................... 0.37 lb/MMBTU ................................................ 0.26 lb/MMBTU. 

SO2—Residual Oil Fired EGU’s ........................ 0.5% Sulfur Fuel Oil ......................................... 0.5% Sulfur Fuel Oil. 

For the above rate limits, all pounds 

per one million British Thermal Units 

(lb/MMBTU) limits are continuous and 

based on a rolling 24-hour averaging 

period, that began on May 1, 2009. For 

the sulfur in fuel oil limits, facilities are 

not permitted to accept fuel oil with 

sulfur content greater than 0.5% by 

weight on or after January 1, 2009. 

Delaware did a comparison of 

Regulation 1146 emission rate limits of 

all eight units regulated by this rule to 

the BART presumptive limits for the 

four BART subject units. This 

comparison shown in Tables 6 for SO2

and Table 7 for NOX demonstrates that 

because Regulation 1146 emissions rate 

limits are applicable to a fleet of units 

larger than the Delaware BART subject 

units, the total emissions reductions 

achieved by Regulation 1146, greatly 

exceed that which would be achieved 

through application of presumptive 

BART emissions rate limits on BART 

subject units only. 

TABLE 6—FACILITY EMISSION SCENARIO FOR SO2 IN TONS

Facility 2002 SO2 2012 Reg 1146 

SO2

Presumptive 

BART SO2

Edge Moor ....................................................................................................................... 10,527 3,896 7,619 

Indian River ...................................................................................................................... 19,956 3,416 15,598 

McKee Run ...................................................................................................................... 700 480 960 

TABLE 7—FACILITY EMISSION SCENARIO FOR NOX IN TONS

Facility 2002 NOX 2012 Reg 1146 

NOX

Presumptive 

BART NOX

Edge Moor ....................................................................................................................... 3,307 1,464 3,570 

Indian River ...................................................................................................................... 4,491 1,643 4,668 

McKee Run ...................................................................................................................... 345 120 345 

Particulate Matter 

Delaware required the BART facilities 

to conduct an analysis of potential 

BART control in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). Each facility began 

by identifying all available retrofit 

control technologies and then 

eliminating all technically infeasible 

options. The control options considered 

for all of the EGUs included wet 

electrostatic precipitators, dry 

electrostatic precipitators, and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

27984 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

baghouses. However, for Unit 3 at the 

McKee Run and Unit 5 at the Edge Moor 

facilities, the two EGUs that use oil as 

their primary fuel, a switch to lower 

sulfur fuels and/or natural gas were also 

considered as potential BART control 

options. 

The McKee Run Unit 3 is a 102 MW 

Riley Stoker boiler fired on No. 6 fuel 

oil with natural gas used as a back-up 

fuel. The boiler is equipped with a 

mechanical multi-cyclone used as a 

control device for particulate matter, 

and equipped with low NOX burners 

and fan boost over-fire air to control 

NOX emissions. The sulfur content of 

the No. 6 fuel oil is limited to no greater 

than 1.0 percent, which restricts SO2

and particulate matter emissions. The 

boiler exhausts through a stack 200 feet 

tall and produces steam to power a 102 

MW electric generator. For this unit, 

Delaware determined a sulfur limit of 

0.5% as BART for PM, which will 

reduce PM emissions by approximately 

50%, is cost-effective, and has no 

significant energy or non-air quality 

environmental benefits or dis-benefits. 

The Edge Moor Unit 4 is a nominal 

175 MW dry-bottom, pulverized coal 

(primary fuel), tangentially-fired boiler 

equipped with low-NOX coal burners 

(LNB) and overfire air (OFA) for the 

control of NOx emissions and an 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for the 

control of filterable particulate 

emissions. Unit 4 is currently permitted 

to burn coal with a sulfur content of up 

to 1.0% wt. and Delaware determined 

that the dry sorbent injection system 

(DSI) is BART for PM since the existing 

ESP is effective at reducing particulate 

matter emissions, and the addition of 

the DSI system will reduce condensable 

emissions. 

The Edge Moor Unit 5 is a nominal 

445 MW residual oil-fired (primary fuel) 

boiler with oil LNB and OFA for the 

control of NOx emissions and a 

multicylone for the control of filterable 

particulates. Unit 5 is currently 

permitted to burn oil with a sulfur 

content of up to 1.0% wt. and Delaware 

determined a sulfur limit of 0.5% as 

BART for PM. This will reduce PM 

emissions by approximately 50%, is 

cost-effective and has no significant 

energy or non-air quality environmental 

benefits or dis-benefits. 

The Indian River Unit 3 is a coalfired, 165 MW EGU equipped with coldside ESP. Delaware determined that the 

existing control electrostatic 

precipitators for PM is BART since it is 

effective at reducing particulate matter 

emissions and none of the other PM 

control options evaluated were costeffective. 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional haze planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

states held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from VISTAS, 

Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal 

Land Managers were also in attendance. 

In addition to the conference calls and 

meeting, the FLMs were given the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

each of the technical documents 

developed by MANE–VU. 

On April 28, 2008, Delaware 

submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to 

the relevant FLMs for review and 

comment pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2). In a letter dated June 17, 

2008, the FLM provided comments on 

the draft Regional Haze SIP in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). 

The comments received from the FLMs 

were addressed and incorporated in 

Delaware’s SIP revision. 

On September 23, 2008, Delaware 

took its Regional Haze SIP out for public 

hearing and only one comment was 

received and it indicated general 

agreement with the proposed SIP 

revision. To address the requirement for 

continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), Delaware commits in their 

SIP to ongoing consultation with the 

FLMs on Regional Haze issues 

throughout the implementation. 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Delaware has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge 

Class I area, located in New Jersey. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Delaware State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

State of Delaware through the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control on September 

25, 2008 that addresses regional haze for 

the first implementation period. EPA is 

proposing to make a determination that 

the Delaware Regional Haze SIP 

contains the emission reductions 

needed to achieve Delaware’s share of 

emission reductions agreed upon 

through the regional planning process. 

Furthermore, Delaware’s Regional Haze 

Plan ensures that emissions from the 

State will not interfere with the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring states’ Class I areas. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find 

that this revision meets the applicable 

visibility related requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2) including but not 

limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA has determined that the 

Regional Haze Plan submitted by the 

State of Delaware satisfies the 

requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking 

this action pursuant to those provisions 

of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 27985 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

approving Delaware’s Regional Haze 

Plan 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: April 29, 2011. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11839 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS