1

AGENDA 

Discussion of the CSAPR Better-than-BART Rule 

February 29, 2012 

10:00 – 11:00 AM (Eastern) 

866-299-3188, conference code 919-541-5676# 

Invited Participants

EPA 

OGC Lea Anderson 

OAQPS Anna Wood 

 Rhea Jones 

 Martha Keating 

 Todd Hawes 

 Phil Lorang 

Region 5 George Czerniak 

 John Mooney 

 John Summerhays 

 Pamela Blakley 

 Matthew Rau 

Region 9 Colleen McKaughan 

Region 10 Debra Suzuki, 

 Juliane Matthews 

 Steve Body 

DOI 

FWS Meredith Bond 

 Sandra Silva 

 Tim Allen 

NPS Carol McCoy 

Pat Brewer 

 Don Shepherd 

 John Vimont 

 Susan Johnson 

USFS Anne Acheson 

 Bret Anderson 

Agenda

1. Roll call 

2. Agenda check 

3. Explanation of attachments 

4. FLM and EPA Goals for this hour and the later call with Janet McCabe (5 

minutes) 

5. FLM Perspectives and Discussion (40 minutes) 

 A. Two prong test for “better-than-BART” 

 B. RAVI when a “better-than-BART” alternative is relied upon in a SIP/FIP 

 C. Perspectives on other issues 

6. EPA: Summary points in response (10 minutes) 

7. Logistics for the call with Janet McCabe (5 minutes) 

8. Docketing a record of this call 
2

Attachment 1

Title 40: Protection of Environment 

PART 51 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

Subpart P Protection of Visibility 

§ 51.301 Definitions 

Reasonably attributable visibility impairment means visibility impairment that is caused 

by the emission of air pollutants from one, or a small number of sources. 

§ 52.302 Implementation control strategies for reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.

* * * 

(c) General plan requirements for reasonably attributable visibility impairment. 

(1) The affected Federal Land Manager may certify to the State, at any time, that 

there exists reasonably attributable impairment of visibility in any mandatory 

Class I Federal area. 

(2) The plan must contain the following to address reasonably attributable 

impairment: 

(i) A long-term (10–15 years) strategy, as specified in §51.305 and 

§51.306, including such emission limitations, schedules of compliance, 

and such other measures including schedules for the implementation of the 

elements of the long-term strategy as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national goal specified in §51.300(a). 

(ii) An assessment of visibility impairment and a discussion of how each 

element of the plan relates to the preventing of future or remedying of 

existing impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area 

within the State. 

(iii) Emission limitations representing BART and schedules for 

compliance with BART for each existing stationary facility identified 

according to paragraph (c)(4) of this section. 

(3) The plan must require each source to maintain control equipment required by 

this subpart and establish procedures to ensure such control equipment is properly 

operated and maintained. 
3

(4) For any existing reasonably attributable visibility impairment the Federal Land 

Manager certifies to the State under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, at least 6 

months prior to plan submission or revision: 

(i) The State must identify and analyze for BART each existing stationary 

facility which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area where the 

impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area is reasonably 

attributable to that existing stationary facility. The State need not consider 

any integral vista the Federal Land Manager did not identify pursuant to 

§51.304(b) at least 6 months before plan submission. 

(ii) If the State determines that technological or economic limitations on 

the applicability of measurement methodology to a particular existing 

stationary facility would make the imposition of an emission standard 

infeasible it may instead prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or 

other operational standard, or combination thereof, to require the 

application of BART. Such standard, to the degree possible, is to set forth 

the emission reduction to be achieved by implementation of such design, 

equipment, work practice or operation, and must provide for compliance 

by means which achieve equivalent results. 

(iii) BART must be determined for fossil-fuel fired generating plants 

having a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts pursuant to 

“Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coalfired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities” (1980), which 

is incorporated by reference, exclusive of appendix E to the Guidelines, 

except that options more stringent than NSPS must be considered. 

Establishing a BART emission limitation equivalent to the NSPS level of 

control is not a sufficient basis to avoid the analysis of control options 

required by the guidelines. This document is EPA publication No. 450/3–

80–009b and has been approved for incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. It is for sale from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161. It is also available for inspection from the 

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information 

on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: 

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/index.html. 

(iv) The plan must require that each existing stationary facility required to 

install and operate BART do so as expeditiously as practicable but in no 

case later than five years after plan approval. 
4

(v) The plan must provide for a BART analysis of any existing stationary 

facility that might cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area identified under this paragraph (c)(4) at 

such times, as determined by the Administrator, as new technology for 

control of the pollutant becomes reasonably available if: 

(A) The pollutant is emitted by that existing stationary facility, 

(B) Controls representing BART for the pollutant have not 

previously been required under this subpart, and 

(C) The impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal 

area is reasonably attributable to the emissions of that pollutant. 

§ 51.308 Regional haze program requirements. 

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for regional haze visibility 

impairment. The State must submit an implementation plan containing emission 

limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each 

BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area, unless the State 

demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. 

* * * 

(2) A State may opt to implement or require participation in an emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to 

BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. Such an emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure must achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. For all 

such emission trading programs or other alternative measures, the State must 

submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and 

include documentation for all required analyses: 

* * * 

v) At the State's option, a provision that the emissions trading program or 

other alternative measure may include a geographic enhancement to the 

program to address the requirement under §51.302(c) related to BART for 

reasonably attributable impairment from the pollutants covered under the 

emissions trading program or other alternative measure. [A provision 

specific to CAIR as an alternative program has the same wording as this 

general provision, as has also been proposed for CSAPR.]
5

Attachment 2

The rulemaking history of “a geographic enhancement to the program 

to address the requirement under §51.302(c) related to BART for 

reasonably attributable impairment” 

May 5, 2004 - Proposed text of 40 CFR 51 appendix Y (the BART guidelines 

document) 

7. How Would a Regional Haze Trading Program Interface With the 

Requirements for ‘‘Reasonably Attributable’’ BART Under § 51.302 of the 

Regional Haze Rule? 

If a State elects to impose case-by-case BART emission limitations according to 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) of the regional haze rule, then there should be no difficulties 

arising from the implementation of requirement for ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ 

BART under 40 CFR 51.302. However, if a State chooses an alternative measure, 

such as an emissions trading program, in lieu of requiring BART emissions 

limitation on specific sources, then the requirement for BART is not satisfied until 

alternative measures reduce emissions sufficient to make ‘‘more reasonable 

progress than BART.’’ Thus, in that period between implementation of an 

emissions trading program and the satisfaction of the overall BART 

requirement, an individual source could be required to install BART for 

reasonably attributable impairment under 40 CFR 51.302. Because such an 

overlay of the requirements under 40 CFR 51.302 on a trading program under 40 

CFR 51.308 might affect the economic and other considerations that were used in 

developing the emissions trading program, the regional haze rule allows for a 

‘‘geographic enhancement’’ under 40 CFR 51.308. This provision addresses the 

interface between a regional trading program and the requirement under 40 CFR 

51.302 regarding BART for reasonably attributable visibility impairment. (See 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(2)(v)). (Emphasis added) 

June 24, 2004 - SNPR for CAIR 

As we explained in our recent reproposal of the BART guidelines (69 FR 25184, 

May 5, 2004), when a State utilizes an alternative measure such as an emissions 

trading program in lieu of requiring BART on specific sources, the requirement 

for BART is not satisfied until the alternative measure reduces emissions 

sufficiently to make ‘‘more reasonable progress than BART.’’ Thus, in that 

period between implementation of an emissions trading program and the 

satisfaction of the overall BART requirement, an individual source could be 

required to install BART for reasonably attributable impairment under 40 

CFR 51.302. The Regional Haze Rule contains a provision allowing for 

‘‘geographic enhancements’’ to address the interface between a regional trading 

program and the requirement under 40 CFR 51.302 regarding BART for 
6

reasonably attributable visibility impairment. (See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(v)). 

(Emphasis added) 

* * * 

We note that the same framework applies in the context of the proposed CAIR 

cap-and-trade programs. That is, until the emissions reductions requirements 

in today’s SNPR are fully implemented in 2015, the possibility exists that a 

certification of impairment by a Federal Land Manager (FLM) could trigger 

a requirement for a State to determine whether the impairment is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single source or small group of sources, and if 

so to make a source-specific BART determination. We request comments on 

whether a ‘‘geographic enhancement’’ (for example, an adjustment to the State’s 

allowance budget) would be appropriate, and whether such enhancement 

mechanisms should be determined by EPA on a national basis, or individually by 

affected States. (Emphasis added) 

May 2005 - CAIR final rule 

Moreover, as explained elsewhere in the SNPR and again below, BART-eligible 

EGUs would not be ‘‘exempt’’ from BART because, until the emissions 

reductions required by the CAIR are fully realized, such sources would remain 

subject to the possibility of being required to install BART controls if deemed 

necessary to meet requirements regarding reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment, as provided by 40 CFR 51.302. (70 FR 25301) (Emphasis added) 

* * * 

A few commenters believed that the CAIR should satisfy BART for purposes of 

reasonably attributable visibility impairment as well as BART for purposes of 

regional haze. Several others commented that it was appropriate or legally 

necessary to preserve the authority of Federal Land Managers (FLMs) and States 

to certify impairment and make reasonable attribution determinations, which 

could subject a source to BART requirements even if the source is a participant in 

the CAIR cap and trade program. These commenters supported the use of a 

strategy similar to that employed by the Western Regional Air Partnership, which 

relies upon a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) between the FLMs and the 

States regarding the criteria by which certifications of impairment may be made, 

along with the possibility of ‘‘geographic enhancements’’ to the cap and trade 

program to accommodate the imposition of source-specific BART control 

requirements on a source within the cap and trade program. 

As proposed in the SNPR, EPA continues to believe that reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment determinations under 40 CFR 51.302 must 

continue to be a viable option in order to insure against any possibility of 

hot-spots. We believe that a certification of reasonably attributable visibility 
7

impairment is fairly unlikely, given that there have been few such certifications 

since 1980, and given that the reductions from the CAIR and other recent 

initiatives will make such certifications decreasingly likely. We believe sources 

can be given sufficient regulatory certainty to enable effective participation in a 

cap and trade program through the use of MOUs and geographic enhancement 

provisions. 

Some commenters believe that because section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires BART for 

an eligible source which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility in any Class I area, EPA is without basis in law or 

regulation to base a better-than-BART determination on an analysis that does not 

evaluate visibility improvement at each and every Class I area, or one that uses 

averaging of visibility improvement across different Class I areas. 

The criteria we applied in our present analysis—that greater reasonable progress 

is defined as no degradation at any Class I area, and greater overall average 

improvement—have not been finalized. However, we disagree with comments 

that 169A(b)(2)’s requirement of BART for sources reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to impairment at any Class I area 159 means that an alternative to the 

BART program must be shown to create improvement at each and every Class I 

area. Even if a BART alternative is deemed to satisfy BART for regional haze 

purposes, based on average overall improvement as opposed to improvement 

at each and every Class I Area, 169A(b)(2)’s trigger for BART based on 

impairment at any Class I area remains in effect, because a source may 

become subject to BART based on ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ at any area. (The EPA believes it is unlikely that a State or FLM 

will have need to certify reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) 

with respect to any EGU in the CAIR region, but nevertheless believes it is 

necessary to preserve this safeguard). 70 FR 25302 

July 2005 - Final rule on the BART guidance 

The final version of Appendix Y itself does not contain the specific question and answer 

about how a Regional Haze trading program interfaces with the requirements for 

‘‘Reasonably Attributable’’ BART. This change from the proposed text of Appendix Y is 

not discussed in the preamble. 

The preamble to the July 2005 rule does address RAVI but does not mention the "until" 

idea. 

With respect to the use of average overall improvement, we explained in the 

CAIR NFR preamble that we disagree with comments that CAA section 

169A(b)(2)’s requirement of BART for sources reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to impairment at any Class I area means that an alternative to the 

BART program must be shown to create improvement at each and every Class I 

Area. Even if a BART alternative is deemed to satisfy BART for regional 
8

haze purposes, based on average overall improvement as opposed to 

improvement at each and every Class I Area, CAA section 169A(b)(2)’s 

trigger for BART based on impairment at any Class I area remains in effect, 

because a source may become subject to BART based on ‘‘reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment’’ at any area. See 40 CFR 51.302. In 

addition, within a regional haze context, not every measure taken is required to 

achieve a visibility improvement at every class I area. BART is one component of 

long term strategies to make reasonable progress, but it is not the only component. 

The requirement that the alternative achieves greater progress based on the 

average improvement at all Class I areas assures that, by definition, the alternative 

will achieve greater progress overall. Though there may be cases where BART 

could produce greater improvement at one or more class I areas, the nodegradation prong assures that the alternative will not result in worsened 

conditions anywhere than would otherwise exist, and the possibility of BART for 

reasonably attributable visibility protects against any potential ‘‘hot spots.’’ 

Taken together, the EPA believes these factors make a compelling case that the 

proposed test properly defines ‘‘greater reasonable progress.’’ The EPA 

anticipates that regional haze implementation plans will also contain measures 

addressing other sources as necessary to make progress at every mandatory 

Federal Class I area. 70 FR 39137 

* * * 

We noted in the final CAIR preamble that although we believe it is unlikely that a 

State or FLM will find it necessary to certify reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment at any Class I area, as a legal matter that possibility exists. That is, the 

determination that CAIR makes greater reasonable progress than BART is made 

in the context of BART for regional haze under CAA 169B, and does not 

preclude a finding of reasonably attributable impairment under CAA 169A. The 

CAIR cap and trade program does not include geographic enhancements to 

accommodate the situation where BART is required based on reasonable 

attribution at a source which participates in the trading program, but States 

retain the discretion to include such enhancements in their SIPs. 70 FR 

39143 
Re: Agenda and attachments : EPA-FLM conference call on the 

Better-than-BART rule, Wednesday, Feb. 29, 10 am Eastern

Patricia_F_Brewer to: Phil Lorang 02/28/2012 07:30 PM

Cc:

"Acheson, Ann -FS", Lea Anderson, "Anderson, Bret A -FS", Pamela 

Blakley, Steve Body, Carol_McCoy, George Czerniak, 

Don_Shepherd, Todd Hawes, John_Vimont, Rhea Jones, Martha 

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Phil,

Major topic areas that we would like to discuss on call tomorrow:

1) Two prong test: we re-iterate that the two prong test should be

conducted for each state's emissions and considering the visibility at

those Class I areas affected by the state.

2) Remedies for states that could implement less controls under the

Transport Rule than under BART:

 for states subject to Transport Rule for ozone only (OK, AR, LA, MS,

 FL) require year-round NOx controls for EGU for which ozone season

 NOx controls could be used in lieu of BART.

 for states subject to Transport Rule for fine particle only (MN and

 NE) remove from Transport Rule or require state specific

 demonstration, potentially other boundary states that are benefiting

 from large emissions reductions in states farther to the east

 remove KS from Better than BART since SIP has already been approved

 and existing BART are at risk if Transport Rule is better than BART

3) RAVI certification is last resort for FLM. We request that

clarification be added to the preamble.

 RAVI certification remains an option if RAVI still exists at any

 Class I area despite the adoption of a BART alternative for regional

 haze. Once a SIP is approved based on Transport Rule is better than

 BART, that does not constitute a BART determination for individual

 facilities affected by the SIP.

 A state should conduct a five factor analysis for a specific source

 when there is a large discrepancy in emissions between presumptive

 BART and controls under the Transport Rule.

 If FLM certifies RAVI, state has to follow requirements of Section

 302.

FLM participants will be able to clarify intent of these bullets.

thanks, Pat Brewer

Pat Brewer

National Park Service

Air Resource Division

303-969-2153

 

 Phil Lorang 
 <Lorang.Phil@epam 

 ail.epa.gov> To 

 "Acheson, Ann -FS" 

 02/27/2012 05:47 <aacheson@fs.fed.us>, "Anderson, 

 PM Bret A -FS" 

 <baanderson02@fs.fed.us>, 

 Don_Shepherd@nps.gov, 

 John_Vimont@nps.gov, 

 meredith_bond@fws.gov, 

 Patricia_F_Brewer@nps.gov, 

 sandra_v_silva@fws.gov, 

 Susan_Johnson@nps.gov, 

 tim_allen@fws.gov, 

 Carol_McCoy@nps.gov, Anna Wood 

 <Wood.Anna@epamail.epa.gov>, George 

 Czerniak 

 <Czerniak.George@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 John Mooney 

 <Mooney.John@epamail.epa.gov>, John 

 Summerhays 

 <Summerhays.John@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 Lea Anderson 

 <anderson.lea@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 Martha Keating 

 <Keating.Martha@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 Pamela Blakley 

 <Blakley.Pamela@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 Rhea Jones 

 <Jones.Rhea@epamail.epa.gov>, Todd 

 Hawes <Hawes.Todd@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 Colleen McKaughan 

 <McKaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov> 

 , Debra Suzuki 

 <Suzuki.Debra@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 Juliane Matthews 

 <Matthews.Juliane@epamail.epa.gov>, 

 Steve Body 

 <Body.Steve@epamail.epa.gov> 

 cc 

 

 Subject 

 Agenda and attachments: EPA-FLM 

 conference call on the 

 Better-than-BART rule, Wednesday, 

 Feb. 29, 10 am Eastern 

 

We are looking forward to this opportunity to talk.

866-299-3188, conference code 919-541-5676#

The conference line is also listed on the agenda.
(See attached file: Agenda Call #1 FLMs and EPA on Better-than-BART

Rule.doc)

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor

Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA

919-541-5463

[attachment "Agenda Call #1 FLMs and EPA on Better-than-BART Rule.doc"

deleted by Patricia F Brewer/DENVER/NPS]