Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1579 

our proposal. Interested parties may also 

submit written comments, as discussed 

in the proposal. Written statements and 

supporting information submitted 

during the comment period will be 

considered with the same weight as any 

oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearing. We will not respond to 

comments during the public hearing. 

When we publish our final action, we 

will provide written responses to all 

oral and written comments received on 

our proposal. To provide opportunities 

for questions and discussion, we will 

hold an open house prior to the public 

hearing. During the open house, EPA 

staff will be available to informally 

answer questions on our proposed 

action. Any comments made to EPA 

staff during the open house must still be 

provided formally in writing or orally 

during the public hearing in order to be 

considered in the record. 

Oral testimony may be limited to 5 

minutes for each commenter to address 

the proposal. We will not be providing 

equipment for commenters to show 

overhead slides or make computerized 

slide presentations. Any person may 

provide written or oral comments and 

data pertaining to our proposal at the 

Public Hearing. Verbatim transcripts, in 

English, of the hearing and written 

statements will be included in the 

rulemaking docket. 

Dated: January 4, 2011. 

Carl E. Edlund, 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division 

Director, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–374 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1072, FRL–9250–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Idaho; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan and Interstate Transport Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of Idaho 

on October 25, 2010, as meeting the 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

approve a portion of the revision as 

meeting certain requirements of the 

regional haze program, including the 

requirements for best available retrofit 

technology (BART). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received at the address below on or 

before February 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2010–1072 by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, 

Suite 900, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 

98101. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT–107. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010– 

1072. 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 

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 docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed below to view a hard copy of the 

docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body at telephone number (206) 

553–0782, body.steve@epa.gov, or the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIP 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Consultation with States and Federal 

Land Managers 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

III. EPA’s Analysis of the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions 

C. Idaho Emissions Inventories 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Idaho Class I Areas 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

F. TASCO BART Analysis 

G. Monsanto/P4 BART Analysis 

H. Improvement in Visibility from BART at 

TASCO, Nampa and Monsanto/P4 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Whether Regional Haze 

SIP Submittal Meets Interstate Transport 

Requirements 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

VI. Scope of Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in the 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1580 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, 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.’’ 

2See 64 FR at 35715. 

3 Id. 

4Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

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

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

CAA section 169(A). Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 

169(B). EPA promulgated regulations in 

1999 to implement sections 169A and 

169B of the Act. These regulations 

require states to develop and implement 

plans to ensure reasonable progress 

toward improving visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 (Class 

I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see 

also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 

FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve certain provisions of Idaho’s 

Regional Haze SIP submission 

addressing the requirements for best 

available retrofit technology (BART), the 

calculation of baseline and natural 

visibility conditions, and the statewide 

inventory of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the provisions of Idaho’s SIP 

submittal addressing BART as meeting 

Idaho’s obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Act for visibility. 

EPA is not taking action today on those 

provisions of the Regional Haze SIP 

submittal related to reasonable progress 

goals and the long term strategy. 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by 

emission of air pollution produced by 

numerous sources and activities, located 

across a broad regional area. The 

sources include but are not limited to, 

major and minor stationary sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources 

including non-anthropogenic sources. 

Visibility impairment is primarily 

caused by fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) or secondary aerosol formed in 

the atmosphere from precursor gasses 

(e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

and in some cases, ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds). 

Atmospheric fine particulate reduces 

clarity, color, and visual range of visual 

scenes. Visibility reducing fine 

particulate is primarily composed of 

sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon 

compounds, elemental carbon, and soil 

dust, and impairs visibility by scattering 

and absorbing light. Fine particulate can 

also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans, and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication.2

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 parks and wilderness areas. 

Average visual range in many Class I 

areas in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without manmade air pollution.3

Visibility impairment also varies day-today and by season depending on 

variation in meteorology and emission 

rates. 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, 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 Class I areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ CAA section 169A(a)(1). 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 

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 35713) (the RHR). The RHR 

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 III of this rulemaking. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.4 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to 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 impairment can originate 

from across state lines, EPA has 

encouraged the States and Tribes to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

created nationally to address regional 

haze and related issues. One of the main 

objectives of the RPOs is to develop and 

analyze data and conduct pollutant 

transport modeling to assist the States or 

Tribes in developing their regional haze 

plans. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP), one of the five RPOs 

nationally, is a voluntary partnership of 

State, Tribal, Federal, and local air 

agencies dealing with air quality in the 

West. WRAP member States include: 

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. WRAP 

Tribal members include Campo Band of 

Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian 

Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1581 

5Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson, Case No. 4:09– 

CV–02453–CW (N.D. Calif.) 

of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of 

Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

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

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for 

PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) 

of the CAA requires states to submit a 

plan to address certain requirements for 

a new or revised NAAQS within three 

years after promulgation of such 

standards, or within such shorter time 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA lists the elements that such 

new plan submissions must address, as 

applicable, including section 

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

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On April 25, 2005, EPA published a 

‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for 

Interstate Transport for the 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 70 FR 

21147. This included a finding that 

Idaho and other states had failed to 

submit SIPs to address interstate 

transport of emissions affecting 

visibility and started a 2-year clock for 

the promulgation of a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA, 

unless the state made a submission to 

meet the requirements of section 

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

submission. Id. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued 

guidance on this topic entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under section 

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

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). We 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

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

require each state to have a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

other states in ways contemplated in the 

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

four distinct requirements related to the 

impacts of interstate transport. The SIP 

must prevent sources in the state from 

emitting pollutants in amounts which 

will: (1) Contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in other 

states; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states; or (4) interfere with efforts to 

protect visibility in other states. 

With respect to establishing that 

emissions from sources in the state 

would not interfere with measures in 

other states to protect visibility, the 

2006 Guidance recommended that states 

make a submission indicating that it 

was premature, at that time, to 

determine whether there would be any 

interference with measures in the 

applicable SIP for another state 

designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ until the 

submission and approval of regional 

haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were 

required to be submitted by December 

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

point in time, however, EPA believes it 

is now necessary to evaluate such 

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

to ensure that the existing SIP, or the 

SIP as modified by the submission, 

contains adequate provisions to prevent 

interference with the visibility programs 

of other states, such as for consistency 

with the assumptions for controls relied 

upon by other states in establishing 

reasonable progress goals to address 

regional haze. 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

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, we anticipate that 

regional haze SIPs will contain 

measures that will achieve these 

emissions reductions, and that these 

measures will meet the requirements of 

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

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the West, all states in the 

WRAP region contributed information 

to a Technical Support System (TSS) 

which provides an analysis of the 

causes of haze, and the levels of 

contribution from all sources within 

each state to the visibility degradation of 

each Class I area. The WRAP States 

consulted in the development of 

reasonable progress goals, using the 

products of this technical consultation 

process to co-develop their reasonable 

progress goals for the Western Class I 

areas. The modeling done by the WRAP 

relied on assumptions regarding 

emissions over the relevant planning 

period and embedded in these 

assumptions were anticipated emissions 

reductions in each of the States in the 

WRAP, including reductions from 

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 draft 

and final regional haze SIPs that have 

now been prepared by States in the 

West accordingly are based, in part, on 

the emissions reductions from nearby 

States that were agreed on through the 

WRAP process. 

Idaho submitted a Regional Haze SIP 

on October 25, 2010, to address the 

requirements of the RHR and the good 

neighbor provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding visibility for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has reviewed 

the submittal and concluded at this time 

to propose to take action on only certain 

elements of Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP. 

EPA is required at this time, to propose 

to take action either to approve Idaho’s 

SIP submittal, or otherwise to take 

action to meet the requirements of 

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

visibility.5 EPA is proposing to find that 

certain elements of Idaho’s Regional 

Haze SIP submittal meet these 

requirements. In particular, as explained 

in section IV of this action, EPA is 

proposing to find that the BART 

measures in Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP 

submittal, which EPA is proposing to 

approve in this action, will also mean 

that the Idaho SIP meets the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding visibility for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 

NAAQS. 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

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

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is 

determined by measuring the visual 

range (or deciview), which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can be viewed 

against the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, 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.6

The deciview is used in expressing 

reasonable progress goals (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 manmade air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., manmade 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% least impaired 

(‘‘best’’) and 20% 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 

2003Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule (EPA–454/B– 

03–004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20% least 

impaired days and 20% most impaired 

days for each calendar year from 2000 

to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 

through 2004, states are required to 

calculate the average degree of visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, based 

on the average of annual values over the 

five-year period. The comparison of 

initial baseline visibility conditions to 

natural visibility conditions indicates 

the amount of improvement necessary 

to attain natural visibility, while the 

future comparison of baseline 

conditions to the then current 

conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress made. In general, the 2000– 

2004 baseline time period is considered 

the time from which improvement in 

visibility is measured. 

C. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for 

consultation, in person and at least 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 visibility 

impairment in any Class I area and to 

offer recommendations on the 

development of the reasonable progress 

goals 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. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

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

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 7 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology’’ 

as determined by the state. States are 

directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such 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 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts, a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has indicated that states should use 

their best judgment in determining 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1583 

8EPA evaluated the technical work products of 

the WRAP used by Idaho in support of this Regional 

Haze SIP submittal. The results of that evaluation 

are included in the document ‘‘WRAP Technical 

Support Document’’ or WRAP TSD. 

whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

The RPOs provided air quality 

modeling to the states to help them in 

determining whether potential BART 

sources can be reasonably expected to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Under the 

BART Guidelines, states may select an 

exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BARTeligible 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. Generally, 

an exemption threshold set by the state 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

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

document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. 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 EPA approves the regional 

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

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

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. States have the flexibility to 

choose the type of control measures 

they will use to meet the requirements 

of BART. 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

There are five mandatory Class I 

areas, or portions of such areas, within 

Idaho. Craters of the Moon National 

Monument, Sawtooth Wilderness Area, 

and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area 

lie completely within Idaho State 

borders. Hells Canyon Wilderness Area 

is a shared Class I area with Oregon, and 

Yellowstone National Park is a shared 

Class I area with Wyoming. See 40 CFR 

81.410. Oregon and Wyoming 

respectively will address reasonable 

progress goals, monitoring, and other 

core requirements for these Class I areas. 

Idaho consulted with Oregon and 

Wyoming to determine Idaho’s 

contribution to regional haze in those 

Class I areas and to determine 

appropriate measures for Idaho’s longterm strategy. See chapter 13, section 

13.2 of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP 

submittal. See also the WRAP Technical 

Support Document 8 (WRAP TSD) 

supporting this action. 

The Idaho SIP submittal addresses the 

three Class I areas that are completely 

within the State border and, as 

appropriate, Class I areas with shared 

jurisdiction with Oregon and Wyoming 

and Class I areas in neighboring states. 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions 

Idaho, using data from the IMPROVE 

monitoring network and analyzed by 

WRAP, established baseline and natural 

visibility conditions as well as the 

uniform rate of progress (URP) to 

achieve natural visibility conditions in 

2064 for all Idaho Class I areas within 

its borders. While Idaho is responsible 

for establishing baseline and natural 

conditions for three Class I areas, the 

SIP also included these values for Hells 

Canyon Wilderness Area and 

Yellowstone National Park, as 

determined by WRAP and established 

by Oregon and Wyoming. 

Baseline visibility was calculated 

from monitoring data collected by 

IMPROVE monitors for the mostimpaired (20% worst) days and the 

least-impaired (20% best) days. Idaho 

used the WRAP derived natural 

visibility conditions. In general, WRAP 

based their estimates on EPA guidance, 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Program (EPA–45/B–03–0005 

September 2003) but incorporated 

refinements which EPA believes 

provides results more appropriate for 

western states than the general EPA 

default approach. See section 2.E of the 

WRAP TSD. 

Craters of the Moon National 

Monument: An IMPROVE monitor is 

located in Craters of the Moon National 

Monument. Based on baseline 2000 to 

2004 data, the average 20% worst days 

visibility is 14 dv and the average 20% 

best days visibility is 4.3 dv. Natural 

visibility for the average 20% worst 

days is 7.53 dv. 

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area: Hells 

Canyon Wilderness Area has an 

IMPROVE monitor located within the 

Wilderness Area at Oxbow Dam. Based 

on baseline 2000 to 2004 data, Oregon 

determined the average 20% worst days 

visibility is 18.55 dv and the average 

20% best days visibility is 5.52 dv. 

Natural visibility for the average 20% 

worst days is 8.32 dv. 

Sawtooth Wilderness Area: Sawtooth 

Wilderness Area has an IMPROVE 

monitor located within the Wilderness 

Area. Based on baseline 2000 to 2004 

data, the average 20% worst days 

visibility is 13.78 dv and the average 

20% best days visibility is 3.99 dv. 

Natural visibility for the average 20% 

worst days is 6.42 dv. 

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area: 

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area 

visibility is represented by an IMPROVE 

monitor located 20 km east of the 

Wilderness Area in Sula, Montana. This 

site also represents visibility in the 

Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Area. 

Based on baseline 2000 to 2004 data, the 

average 20% worst days visibility is 

13.41 dv and the average 20% best days 

visibility is 2.58 dv for both areas. 

Natural visibility for the SelwayBitteroot and the Anaconda-Pintler 

Wilderness Areas average 20% worst 

days is 7.43 dv. 

Yellowstone National Park: 

Yellowstone National Park has an 

IMPROVE monitor located within the 

park. Based on baseline 2000 to 2004 

data Wyoming determined the average 

20% worst days visibility is 11.76 dv 

and the average 20% best days visibility 

is 2.58 dv. Natural visibility for the 

average 20% worst days is 6.24 dv. 

Based on our evaluation of the State’s 

baseline and natural conditions 

analysis, EPA is proposing to find that 

Idaho has appropriately determined 

baseline visibility for the average 20% 

worst and 20% best days and natural 

visibility conditions for the average 20% 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

worst days in each Class I area within 

the state. See the WRAP TSD supporting 

this action (section 2.D and 2.E). 

C. Idaho Emission Inventories 

There are three main categories of air 

pollution emission sources: Point 

sources, area sources, and mobile 

sources. Point sources are larger 

stationary sources that emit pollutants 

through a stack or duct. Area sources are 

large numbers of small sources that are 

widely distributed across an area, such 

as residential heating units or reentrained dust from unpaved roads or 

windblown dust form agricultural 

fields. Mobile sources are sources such 

as motor vehicles, locomotives and 

aircraft. 

The RHR requires a statewide 

emission inventory of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(v). The WRAP, with data 

supplied by the states, compiled 

emission inventories for all major 

source categories in Idaho for the 2002 

baseline year and estimated emission 

inventories for 2018. Emission estimates 

for 2018 were generated from 

anticipated population growth, growth 

in industrial activity, and emission 

reductions from implementation of 

control measures, e.g., implementation 

of BART limitations, and motor vehicle 

tailpipe emissions. Appendix D of the 

Idaho Regional Haze SIP discusses how 

emission estimates were determined 

and contains the emission inventory. 

Detailed estimates of the emissions, 

used in the modeling conducted by the 

WRAP and Idaho, can be found at the 

WRAP Web site: http://vista.cira.

colostate.edu/TSS/Results/

Emissions.aspx. 

There are a number of emission 

inventory source categories identified in 

the Idaho SIP: point, area, on-road 

mobile, off-road mobile, anthropogenic 

fire (prescribed forest fire, agricultural 

field burning, and residential wood 

combustion), natural fire, road dust, 

fugitive dust and windblown dust. The 

2002 baseline and 2018 projected 

emissions, as well as the net changes of 

emissions between these two years, are 

presented in Tables 8–1 through 8–8 in 

the SIP submittal for SO2, NOX, Volatile 

Organic Carbon (VOC), Organic Carbon 

(OC), Elemental Carbon (EC), fine 

particulate (PM2.5), coarse particulate 

(PM coarse) and ammonia. The methods 

that WRAP used to develop these 

emission inventories are described in 

more detail in the WRAP TSD. As 

explained in the WRAP TSD, emissions 

were calculated using best available 

data and approved EPA methods. See 

WRAP TSD section 12. 

SO2 emissions in Idaho come mostly 

from coal combustion at industrial 

boilers and from other industrial 

activities. SO2 emissions estimates for 

point sources came either from source 

test data (where available) or 

calculations based on fuel type and 

quantity burned. These industrial point 

sources contribute 45% of total 

statewide SO2 emissions. The second 

largest contributor to SO2 emissions in 

Idaho is fire: 31% from natural fire and 

2% from anthropogenic fire. 

Idaho projects a 45% statewide 

reduction in point source SO2 emissions 

by 2018 due to implementation of BART 

emission limitations. Idaho also projects 

total 2018 statewide SO2 emissions to be 

reduced by 33.9% below 2002 levels as 

a result of BART and additional 

reductions from mobile sources and 

anthropogenic fire emissions. According 

to the State’s analysis, overall point 

source emissions, the largest source 

category in 2002, are projected to be 

reduced by 46.7%. Area source 

emissions (8% of statewide SO2

emissions) are projected to increase 

7.9% between 2002 and 2018 due to 

population growth. Idaho projects SO2

emissions associated with natural fire, 

the second largest source category in 

2002, to remain unchanged and would 

become the largest source category in 

2018. 

NOX emissions in Idaho come mostly 

from mobile sources, both from on-road 

and off-road mobile sources, which 

contribute 46% of total statewide NOX

emissions. The second largest source 

category of NOX emissions is area 

source emissions from combustion to 

heat buildings. Area source emissions 

account for 19% of statewide NOX

emissions. Idaho projects that 2018 total 

statewide emissions of NOX will be 

20.6% lower than 2002 levels. Idaho 

also projects on-road and off-road 

mobile source emissions to be reduced 

by 72.4% and 38.3% respectively by 

2018, due to new Federal motor vehicle 

emission standards and fleet turnover. 

Idaho projects area source NOX

emissions to increase by 38.8% to 

become the largest source category in 

2018 due to population growth and new 

industrial sources. Idaho projects 

natural fire emissions to remain 

unchanged and become the second 

largest NOX source category in 2018. 

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) in 

Idaho come mostly from area sources 

such as industrial solvent use, paints, 

pharmaceuticals, and refrigerants, 

which contribute 46% of total VOC 

emissions. The second largest source 

category in VOC emissions is nonanthropogenic fire which contributes 

25% of total VOC emissions, while the 

second largest source category of 

anthropogenic VOC is mobile sources. 

Idaho projects 2018 statewide VOC 

emissions to increase by 19.2% over 

2002 levels even though on-road mobile, 

off-road mobile and anthropogenic VOC 

emissions are projected to decrease 

61.7%, 32.2% and 52.3% respectively. 

This increase in VOC emissions is due 

to a projected 64.2% increase in area 

source VOC emissions primarily due to 

population growth and increased 

business activity. 

Organic carbon in Idaho comes from 

natural fire, anthropogenic fire and 

mobile sources. Natural fire is the 

largest source category, which 

contributes 82% of organic carbon 

emissions. The second largest source 

category is anthropogenic fire which 

contributes 15% of the total organic 

carbon emissions. Idaho projects 2018 

statewide organic carbon emissions to 

decrease 7.6% from 2002 emission 

levels due to reductions in on-road 

mobile, off-road mobile, and 

anthropogenic fire of 10.8%, 43.1% and 

51.6% respectively. 

Elemental carbon is associated with 

incomplete combustion. The largest 

source category is natural fire, which 

contributes 72% of total elemental 

carbon emissions. The second largest 

source category is off-road mobile 

sources (diesel) which contributes 14% 

of total elemental carbon emissions. 

Idaho projects 2018 statewide elemental 

carbon emissions to decrease by 50.7% 

from 2002 emission levels. These 

projected reductions are the result of 

anticipated emission reductions in onroad mobile and off-road mobile 

emissions of 73.8% and 64.3% 

respectively. 

Fine particulate, particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 

micrometers, is emitted from a variety of 

area sources. Point sources account for 

only 2% of statewide fine particulate. 

Wind blown dust is the largest source 

category contributing 26% of total fine 

particulate. Wood stoves and small 

manufacturing and industrial sources 

contribute 24% of total fine particulate. 

Natural fire, anthropogenic fire, road 

dust and other fugitive dust sources also 

emit approximately equal amounts of 

fine particulate. Idaho projects that 2018 

fine particulate emissions will increase 

by 12.1% over 2002 emission levels due 

to population and industrial growth. 

Emissions increases are projected from 

point, area, road dust, fugitive dust at 

26.8%, 33.6%, 32.0%, and 30.1% 

respectively. Fine particulate emissions 

associated with anthropogenic fire are 

expected to decrease by 53.6%. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1585 

Coarse particulate is particulate with 

an aerodynamic diameter between 2.5 

and 10 micrometers. It is composed of 

larger particles in wind blown dust, 

natural fire and other particulate from 

industrial grinding sources. The largest 

source category is wind blown dust 

which contributes 40% of total coarse 

particulate emissions. The second 

largest source is natural fire which 

contributes 22% of coarse particulate 

emissions. Idaho projects that 2018 

emissions of coarse particulate to 

increase by 11.9% over 2002 emission 

levels. Idaho projects course particulate 

emissions from most categories to 

increase, with the exception of 

anthropogenic fire which will decrease 

by 51.7%. 

Ammonia does not directly impair 

visibility but can be a precursor to the 

formation of particulate in the 

atmosphere through chemical reaction 

with SO2 and NOX to form a ‘‘secondary 

aerosol.’’ Area sources are the primary 

source category contributing to 

ammonia emissions and account for 

85% of total ammonia emissions. The 

second largest source category is natural 

fire which contributes 10% of ammonia 

emissions. Idaho projects ammonia 

emissions in 2018 to increase by 1.3% 

over 2002 emission levels with 

increasing emissions in all categories 

with the exception of anthropogenic fire 

which Idaho projects to decrease by 

53.4%. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

Idaho Class I Areas 

Each pollutant species has its own 

visibility impairing property; 1 μg/m3 of 

sulfate, for example, is more effective in 

scattering light than 1 μg/m3 of organic 

carbon and therefore impairs visibility 

more than organic carbon. Following the 

approach recommended by the WRAP 

and as explain more fully below, Idaho 

used a two step process to identify the 

contribution of each source or source 

category to existing visibility 

impairment. First, ambient pollutant 

concentration by species (sulfate, 

nitrate, organic carbon, fine particulate, 

etc.) was determined from the IMPROVE 

sampler in each Class I area. These 

concentrations were then converted into 

deciview values to distribute existing 

impairment among the measured 

pollutant species. This calculation used 

the ‘‘improved IMPROVE equation’’ (See 

section 2.C of the WRAP TSD) to 

calculate extinction from each pollutant 

specie concentration. Extinction, in 

inverse megameters, was then converted 

to deciview using the equation defining 

deciview. Second, the Comprehensive 

Air Quality Model with Extensions 

(CAMx) and PM Source Apportionment 

Technology (PSAT) models were used 

to determine which sources and source 

categories contributed to the ambient 

concentration of each pollutant species. 

Thus, impairment was distributed by 

source and source category. 

After considering the available 

models, the WRAP and Western States 

selected two source apportionment 

analysis tools. The first source 

apportionment tool was the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx) in conjunction with 

PM Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT). This model uses emission 

source characterization, meteorology 

and atmospheric chemistry for aerosol 

formation to predict pollutant 

concentrations in the Class I area. The 

predicted results are compared to 

measured concentrations to assess 

accuracy of model output. CAMx PSAT 

modeling was used to determine source 

contribution to ambient sulfate and 

nitrate concentrations. The WRAP used 

state-of-the-science source 

apportionment tools within a widely 

used photochemical model. EPA has 

reviewed the PSAT analysis and 

considers the modeling, methodology, 

and analysis acceptable. See section 6.A 

of the WRAP TSD. 

The second tool was the Weighted 

Emissions Potential (WEP) model, used 

primarily as a screening tool to decide 

which geographic source regions have 

the potential to contribute to haze at 

specific Class I areas. WEP does not 

account for atmospheric chemistry 

(secondary aerosol formation) or 

removal processes, and thus is used for 

estimating inert particulate 

concentrations. The model uses back 

trajectory wind flow calculations and 

resident time of an air parcel to 

determine source and source category 

and location for ambient organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, PM2.5, and coarse PM 

concentrations. These modeling tools 

were the state-of-the-science and EPA 

has determined that these tools were 

appropriately used by WRAP for 

regional haze planning. Description of 

these tools and our evaluation of them 

are described in more detail in section 

6 of the WRAP TSD. 

Figure 7–1 in the Idaho Regional Haze 

SIP submittal presents the light 

extinction for the base year at each Class 

I area by visibility impairing pollutant 

species for the average of the 20% worst 

days. The visibility impairing pollutant 

species identified are: Fine particulate 

(i.e. sea salt, fine soil, elemental carbon, 

organic carbon, ammonium sulfate and 

ammonium nitrate) and coarse material. 

In addition the SIP submission 

identifies in Figures 7.2 through Figure 

7.52, light extinction by pollutant 

species for the average of the 20% worst 

and average of the 20% best days for 

each of the Class I areas. 

Figure 7–1 of the SIP indicates that on 

the 20% worst days organic carbon is 

the primary pollutant impairing 

visibility in the Sawtooth and SelwayBitterroot Wilderness Areas. In Craters 

of the Moon National Monument the 

primary pollutant impairing visibility 

on the 20% worst days is ammonium 

nitrate. 

Idaho also analyzed the monthly 

variation of light extinction and 

pollutant specie concentrations for the 

20% worst days. See Idaho SIP Figures 

7–6 and 7–7, Figures 7–24 through 7– 

27, Figures 7–35 through 7–38. Each 

Class I area shows a distinct monthly 

and seasonal variation in impairment. 

For example, the 20% worst days in 

Craters of the Moon National Monument 

occur during the winter months of 

December through February. The 20% 

worst days in the Sawtooth and SelwayBitterroot Wilderness Areas occur from 

April through November. This variation 

in impairment is due to monthly and 

seasonal variation in meteorology and 

emission rates. 

To determine potential impacts of 

emission sources in Idaho on Class I 

areas in other states, Idaho considered 

the WRAP analysis of interstate impacts. 

Ambient air sulfate and nitrate 

concentrations for the 20% worst and 

best days for baseline (2002–2004) and 

2018 at each western Class I area is 

distributed among all states in the 

WRAP using PSAT modeling. The SIP 

submittal provides an analysis of the 

Class I areas in nearby states. See 

chapter 9.3 of the Idaho Regional Haze 

SIP submission. These Class I areas are: 

Shared Class I Areas With Oregon and 

Wyoming 

• Hells Canyon Wilderness Area 

• Yellowstone National Park 

Class I Areas Outside Idaho 

• Glacier National Park in Montana: 

Idaho is ranked 3rd behind Montana 

and Washington in contribution of 

visibility impairing pollutants on the 

20% worst days 

• Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area 

in Montana: Idaho is ranked 3rd behind 

Oregon and Washington in contribution 

to visibility impairing pollutants on the 

20% worst days 

• Bob Marshall Wilderness Area in 

Montana: Idaho is ranked 3rd behind 

Montana and Washington in 

contribution to visibility impairing 

pollutants on the 20% worst days 

• Gates of the Mountain Wilderness 

in Montana: Idaho is ‘‘ranked 3rd’’ 

behind Montana and Washington in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1586 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9Monsanto agreed to forego exemption modeling 

and to move directly to a BART determination. 

10The 22nd highest impact during 2003–2004 

corresponds to the 98th percentile of modeling 

results, an approach to applicability that EPA 

concluded was appropriate in the BART 

Guidelines. 70 FR at 39,123. 

contribution to visibility impairing 

pollutants on the 20% worst days 

• North Absaroka Wilderness in 

Wyoming: Idaho is ranked 2nd behind 

Wyoming in contribution to visibility 

impairing pollutants on the 20% worst 

days 

• Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming: 

Idaho is ranked 2nd behind Wyoming in 

contribution to visibility impairing 

pollutants on the 20% worst days 

• Eagle Cap Wilderness Area Oregon: 

Idaho is ranked 3rd behind Oregon and 

Washington in contribution to visibility 

impairing pollutant on the 20% worst 

days 

• Jarbidge Wilderness Area in 

Nevada: Idaho is ranked 1st in 

contribution of sulfate and nitrate to the 

Jarbidge Wilderness area. 

EPA is proposing to find that Idaho 

has appropriately identified the primary 

pollutants impacting its Class I areas. 

EPA is also proposing to find that the 

SIP contains an appropriate analysis of 

the impacts of emissions from Idaho on 

nearby Class I areas. 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the State’s boundaries. 

Table 10–1 in the SIP submission 

presents the list of all BART-eligible 

sources located in Idaho. These sources 

are: The Amalgamated Sugar Company 

(TASCO) in Twin Falls, TASCO in 

Nampa, TASCO in Paul, NU West/ 

Agrium in Soda Springs, the J.R. 

Simplot Don Plant in Pocatello, the 

Monsanto/P4 Production LLC facility at 

Soda Springs, and the Potlatch Pulp & 

Paper mill in Lewiston Idaho. 

The second phase of the BART 

determination process is to identify 

those BART-eligible sources that may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility at any Class I area and are, 

therefore, subject to BART. As 

explained above, EPA has issued 

guidelines that provide states with 

guidance for addressing the BART 

requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 appendix 

Y; see also 70 FR 39,104 (July 6, 2005). 

The BART Guidelines describe how 

states may consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review based on dispersion 

modeling showing that the sources 

contribute below a certain threshold 

amount. Idaho conducted dispersion 

modeling for the BART-eligible sources 

to determine the visibility impacts of 

these sources on Class I areas with the 

exception of the Monsanto/P4 

Production LLC facility which was 

categorized as subject to BART without 

analysis.9

The BART Guidelines require States 

to set a contribution threshold to assess 

whether the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

Generally, States may not establish a 

contribution threshold that exceeds 0.5 

dv impact. 70 FR at 39,161. Idaho 

established a contribution threshold of 

0.5 dv through negotiated rulemaking 

with industry, FLMs, and the public. In 

its SIP submittal, Idaho notes that the 

0.5 dv threshold is also consistent with 

the threshold used by all other states in 

the WRAP. Any source with an impact 

of greater than 0.5 dv in any Class I area, 

including Class I areas in other states, 

would be subject to a BART analysis 

and BART emission limitations. 

The explanation given by Idaho for 

adopting a 0.5 dv threshold for 

determining whether a BART source 

may be reasonably anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any visibility 

impairment in a Class I area is not 

adequate to justify the selection of such 

a threshold. Although a number of 

stakeholders may have agreed that a 0.5 

dv threshold is appropriate, and other 

states in the Region may have adopted 

such a threshold, such agreement does 

not provide sufficient basis concluding 

that such a threshold was appropriate in 

the case of Idaho. Based on EPA’s 

review of the BART-eligible sources in 

Idaho, however, EPA is proposing to 

find that a 0.5 dv threshold is 

appropriate, given the specific facts in 

Idaho. 

In the BART Guidelines, EPA 

recommended that States ‘‘consider the 

number of BART sources affecting the 

Class I areas at issue and the magnitude 

of the individual sources’ impacts. In 

general, a larger number of BART 

sources causing impacts in a Class I area 

may warrant a lower contribution 

threshold.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, 

2005. In developing its regional haze 

SIP, Idaho modeled the impacts of six 

of the seven BART-eligible sources on 

Class I areas within a 300 km radius. 

(See Table 10–3 through Table 10–8 of 

the SIP submittal). As noted above, the 

State and Monsanto/P4 Production 

mutually agreed that Monsanto/P4 was 

subject to BART. Of these BART-eligible 

sources, only TASCO, Nampa exceeded 

the 0.5 dv threshold, based on 

consideration of the 22nd highest 

impact during 2003–2005.10 For the 

remaining five BART-eligible sources, 

the modeling showed maximum 

impacts below 0.4 dv. These sources are 

generally widely distributed across the 

State, and only TASCO Twin Falls and 

TASCO Paul showed modeled impacts 

affecting the same Class I area. Given 

the relatively limited impact on 

visibility from these sources, Idaho 

could have reasonably concluded that a 

0.5 dv threshold was appropriate for 

capturing those BART-eligible sources 

with significant impacts on visibility in 

Class I areas. For these reasons, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 0.5 dv 

threshold adopted by Idaho in its 

Regional Haze SIP. 

To determine those sources subject to 

BART, Idaho used the CALPUFF model. 

The dispersion modeling was conducted 

in accord with the BART Modeling 

Protocol7. This Protocol was jointly 

developed by the states of Idaho, 

Washington, Oregon and EPA and has 

undergone public review. The Protocol 

was used by all three states in 

determining which BART-eligible 

sources are subject to BART. See 

appendix F of the SIP submission for 

details of the modeling protocol, its 

application and results. As noted above, 

Idaho determined through modeling 

that one, of the six modeled BARTeligible sources in Idaho, was subject to 

BART: The TASCO facility in Nampa. In 

addition, the Monsanto/P4 Production 

LLC facility in Soda Springs was 

determined to be subject to BART based 

on agreement by the source and the 

State. 

F. TASCO BART Analysis 

TASCO Nampa is a sugar beet 

processing facility that operates a 350 

million BTU per hour, coal-fired boiler 

known as the Riley boiler. The Riley 

boiler emits sulfur dioxide, oxides of 

nitrogen and particulate matter. It is 

anticipated to operate into the 

foreseeable future, thus expected life of 

the source is not a factor in the BART 

determination. 

The first step in a BART analysis is 

the identification of all available retrofit 

control options. Available retrofit 

control options are those air pollution 

control technologies with a practical 

potential for application to the emission 

unit. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y 

provides guidance on identifying 

available options that includes review of 

EPA’s Clean Air Technology Center 

RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse, state 

and local Best Available Control 

Technology Guidelines, and a number 

of other documents. See 40 CFR part 51 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1587 

appendix Y(IV)(D)(1). Generally EPA 

does not expect states to consider 

control technologies that have not 

already been demonstrated in practice 

to be technically feasible. 

Idaho identified the pollutants of 

concern for the BART determination at 

the Riley boiler to be sulfur dioxide, 

oxides of nitrogen and particulate 

matter. BART controls for each 

pollutant will be discussed below. 

Following an evaluation of available 

controls, described below, Idaho 

determined that the following emission 

limits represent BART for the Riley 

Boiler: 

SO2—104 lb/hr 

NOX—31 lb/hr 

PM—12.4 lb/hr 

The Idaho Regional Haze SIP submittal 

includes the federally enforceable Tier II 

operating permit for TASCO, Nampa, 

(permit No. T2–2009.0109) that contains 

these emission limits. See letter and 

attachments dated September 7, 2010, 

from Mike Simon, Stationary Source 

Manager, Idaho Air Quality Division, to 

Kent Quinney, Plant Manager, The 

Amalgamated Sugar Company, LLC– 

Nampa Factory. The BART emission 

limits in the Tier II operating permit are 

slightly higher than those limits in the 

SIP submittal to allow for slight 

variation in test method results. 

The emission limits for NOX and SO2

can be achieved respectively through 

use of low NOX burners with overfire air 

and spray dry gas desulfurization. BART 

will result in a 65% reduction in SO2

emissions and 80% reduction in NOX

emissions. Idaho found that the bag 

house currently in place at the facility 

will result in compliance with the PM 

BART limitation. 

1. TASCO SO2 BART Evaluation 

The TASCO Riley boiler currently 

burns low-sulfur coal limited to 1% 

sulfur by weight. The alternative control 

options considered for SO2 include: 

low-sulfur coal limited to 0.6% sulfur 

by weight that would provide an 

additional 15% control efficiency, wet 

flue gas desulfurization (Wet FGD) with 

a 95% control efficiency, spray dryer 

flue gas desulfurization (Spray Dry FGD) 

with an 80% control efficiency, dry lime 

flue gas desulfurization (Dry Lime FGD) 

with a 55% control efficiency, dry 

Trona flue gas desulfurization (Dry 

Trona FGD) with a 65% control 

efficiency. Idaho found that all these 

technologies are technically feasible, 

but, as explained below, that wet FGD 

and spray dry FGD were the best 

options for further evaluation. 

With a removal efficiency of 95% or 

greater, wet FGD systems offer one of 

the highest SO2 removal efficiencies of 

the available control technologies. 

However, the installation of wet FGD at 

TASCO Nampa would require 

significant modification of the facility 

that would increase the cost of this 

option. As explained in the SIP 

submittal, wet FGD results in a 

saturated exhaust stream. The resulting 

condensation that would form in the 

stack would likely have a very low pH 

that would require installation of a stack 

liner to protect the integrity of the stack. 

Idaho concluded that installation of a 

stack liner would cost $2,000,000. Cost 

effectiveness of wet FGD was 

accordingly estimated at $3353/ton, 

with an incremental cost of $6940/ton 

as compared to the next most efficient 

control technology, spray dry FGD. 

Spray dry FGD typically has an 

estimated control efficiency of 80–90% 

depending on exit flue gas temperature 

as it approaches the adiabatic saturation 

temperature. Idaho used 80% control 

efficiency in this evaluation. Cost 

effectiveness of spray dry FGD is $2163/ 

ton and the incremental cost over the 

next most efficient control technology, 

dry Trona FGD is $360/ton. 

Idaho also evaluated the energy and 

non-air related environmental impacts 

of the SO2 control options. Waste-water 

treatment from wet FGD is a major 

concern to Idaho and would need to be 

treated onsite. The SIP submittal 

explains that it would be difficult and 

expensive to expand the TASCO on-site 

treatment facility due to limited 

available land and the City of Nampa 

water treatment system might not be 

able to handle the increased water 

volume. See State of Idaho Department 

of Environmental Quality, Regional 

Haze Plan, 10/8/10, appendix F, 

Table 32 of appendix F of the SIP 

submittal provides the estimated 

visibility impact of the five control 

options. Wet FGD would reduce the 

number of days with greater than 0.5 dv 

impact over a three year period from 

127 days to 43 days. Spray dry FGD 

would reduce the number of days with 

greater than 0.5 dv from 127 days to 51 

days. Considering the incremental cost 

of wet FGD over spray dry FGD of 

$6940/ton, the waste water treatment 

limitations, and achieving a reduction of 

only 8 more days with impact greater 

than 0.5 dv over a three year period, 

Idaho concluded that wet FGD is not 

warranted. 

Idaho has determined that spray dry 

FGD is the appropriate control 

technology for SO2 and established 104 

lb/hr as BART based on cost 

effectiveness and improvement in 

visibility. EPA agrees with Idaho’s 

BART determination for SO2. 

2. NOX BART Evaluation 

Idaho identified potential control 

options for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for 

the Riley boiler as: low NOX burners 

(LNB) with a 50% control efficiency, 

low NOX burners with overfire air (LNB/ 

OFA) with a 65% control efficiency, 

ultra low NOX burners (ULNB) which 

was determined to be infeasible, 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with 

a 90% control efficiency, and selective 

non-catalytic (SNCR) determined to be 

infeasible. Idaho evaluated the technical 

feasibility of each control option. Idaho 

found that ULNB is not technologically 

feasible as the fire box at the Riley boiler 

is not large enough to accommodate the 

flame management system necessary for 

this type of control. Idaho also 

concluded that SNCR is also not 

technologically feasible as the boiler 

exhaust path does not have enough 

residence time for reliable control. 

Idaho accordingly identified three 

technically feasible control options: 

LNB, LNB/OFA, and SCR. 

Idaho determined the cost 

effectiveness and incremental cost 

effectiveness for the three technically 

feasible control options. See Table 35 of 

appendix F of the SIP submittal. Idaho 

concluded that LNB/OFA provides a 

reasonable cost effectiveness of $1270/ 

ton and incremental cost effectiveness 

of $2430/ton over low-NOX burners. 

SCR would provide a 90% reduction in 

NOX emissions at a cost effectiveness of 

$3768 and incremental cost of $10,245/ 

ton over LNB/OFA. LNB/OFA would 

reduce the number of days with impacts 

greater than 0.5 dv over a three year 

period from 127 days to 56 days. SCR 

would reduce the number of days with 

impact greater than 0.5 dv over a three 

year period from 127 days to 40 days. 

Considering the incremental cost of SCR 

over LNB/OFA of $10,245/ton and 

achieving an incremental reduction of 

16 days with impact greater than 0.5 dv 

over a three year period, Idaho 

concluded SCR is not warranted and 

that LNB/OFA represents BART. In 

addition, as described below in section 

F(d), TASCO argued that it could not 

afford to install an SCR. In view of this 

and Idaho’s conclusion that the 

incremental cost of $10,245/ton for 

reducing the number of days with an 

impact greater than 0.5 dv by 16 over a 

three year period EPA is proposing to 

approve Idaho’s determination of BART 

for NOX TASCO. 

3. PM BART Evaluation 

The TASCO Nampa Riley boiler has a 

baghouse to control particulate matter. 

In its PM BART evaluation Idaho 

considered other alternative control 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1588 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

technologies including: An enhanced 

baghouse with a control efficiency of 

99%, wet electrostatic precipitator with 

a control efficiency of 99%, and dry 

electrostatic precipitator with a control 

efficiency of 99%. Idaho compared 

these technologies to the control 

efficiency of the current baghouse. The 

existing baghouse with a control 

efficiency of 99% emits 0.036 lbs/ 

MMbtu (350 MMbtu/hour boiler with a 

limit of 0.036 lbs/MMbtu the emissions 

are 12.6 lbs/hour). 

Idaho determined that the existing 

baghouse is the best BART control 

technology since it will not incur 

additional cost and has control 

efficiency comparable to the identified 

alternate control technologies. The 

existing baghouse has the added 

environmental benefits of not requiring 

additional water or electricity. The 

benefit of adding an additional 

baghouse is so small the benefits are 

outweighed by the costs. In conclusion, 

the best BART alternative for particulate 

is the existing baghouse. 

Idaho determined that the current 

baghouse and an emission limitation of 

12.4 lbs/hr is BART. EPA agrees with 

this determination. 

4. TASCO Affordability 

TASCO appealed to Idaho that the 

company could not afford the identified 

BART (Spray Dry FGD and LNB/OFA) 

and remain viable. At Idaho’s request, 

EPA conducted an evaluation and 

analysis of TASCO’s financial status and 

health. Based on this evaluation, EPA 

determined TASCO could afford 

implementation of the identified BART. 

EPA also concluded that TASCO could 

not reasonably afford the more costly 

control options of Wet FGD for SO2

control and SCR for NOX control. See 

Idaho Regional Haze Plan 10/8/10, 

appendix F, page F–317: Executive 

Summary excerpt from: An 

Affordability Analysis of The 

Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC’s 

Affordability Claim with respect to the 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) for the Riley Boiler at the 

Nampa, Idaho facility, February 12, 

2010. 

Based on EPA’s review and evaluation 

we propose to approve the BART 

determination for TASCO. 

G. Monsanto/P4 BART Analysis 

Monsanto/P4 Production is a thermal 

process elemental phosphorus 

production facility. Idaho identified two 

BART units at the facility: The #5 

Rotary Kiln and the #9 Furnace Exhaust 

and carbon monoxide Flare. Phosphate 

ore is processed in a high temperature 

electric arc furnace in a reducing 

atmosphere produced by the 

introduction of coke. Carbon monoxide 

gas from the arc furnace is used as fuel 

for the #5 Rotary Kiln. Excess carbon 

monoxide is flared to the atmosphere. 

Idaho concluded, as discussed below, 

that the following emissions limit is 

BART for #5 Rotary Kiln: 

SO2—143 lb/hr 

Idaho determined, as discussed 

below, that there are no technically 

feasible NOX control options for the #9 

Furnace Exhaust and CO Flare. 

1. #5 Rotary Kiln, SO2 Evaluation 

Idaho conducted a thorough SO2

BART evaluation for the #5 Rotary Kiln. 

The #5 Rotary Kiln heats phosphate ore 

to remove volatile impurities and 

harden ore nodules for further handling 

and introduction into the electric arc 

furnace. Carbon monoxide from the 

furnace off gases is the primary fuel 

with coal and natural gas as backup. 

Existing federally enforceable process 

and air pollution controls for the kiln 

are included in the facility’s current 

Tier I (title V) operating permit No. T1– 

2009.0121, issued July 24, 2009. These 

requirements consist of: 

• A limit on the sulfur content of the 

coal to no more than 1% by weight. 

• A dust knockout chamber, spray 

tower, four parallel Hydro-Sonic©

scrubbers, and four parallel cyclonic 

separators. The tandem nozzle fixedthroat free-jet scrubbers are required for 

control of PM/PM10 and polonium-210 

emissions (a radionuclide) found in the 

phosphate ore. 

The initial SO2 control device is a 

settling chamber where large particles 

are removed. The exhaust flow is then 

routed to a concrete tower where it 

passes through water sprays to remove 

soluble gases and particulate matter. 

The exhaust flow is then routed to four 

parallel Hydro-Sonic© scrubbers for 

removal of submicron particles and 

entrained particle-laden water. The 

exhaust gases exit the scrubbers and 

pass through cyclonic separators and 

fans prior to exiting to the atmosphere 

through four stacks. 

A lime concentrated dual alkali 

(LCDA) scrubber to control SO2

emissions from the kiln was installed by 

Monsanto/P4 in 2005. The LCDA 

scrubbing process uses the existing 

Hydro-Sonic© scrubbers to absorb SO2

with a solution of sodium salts 

comprised of sodium sulfite and 

bisulfite, the active absorbent species. 

Some sodium sulfate will also be 

produced. The spent solution of sodium 

sulfite/bisulfite/sulfate is continuously 

withdrawn to a dual-reactor system, 

where it is treated with hydrated lime. 

The lime regenerates the scrubbing 

solution and precipitates calcium 

sulfite/sulfate solids. The solids are 

removed from the system through 

thickening and filtration, and the 

regenerated solution is returned to the 

scrubber as feed material. 

Additional SO2 controls would be 

add-on (or retrofit) control to the 

existing control technology. Idaho 

analyzed the technically feasible retrofit 

control technologies for SO2 emissions 

from the #5 Rotary Kiln. These 

alternative controls included: Wet FGD 

with lime and amine scrubbing. 

Idaho evaluated the control 

efficiencies of these feasible 

technologies and found that both are 

capable of 97% control. As determined 

by Idaho, the costs of these controls are 

$466/ton for wet FGD and $881/ton for 

amine scrubbing. See appendix F, Table 

5.1.1 (page 338) of the Idaho Regional 

Haze SIP. The energy impacts were 

evaluated and both options require more 

energy, but not disproportionate 

amounts. Neither of the available 

options constitute significant adverse 

non-air environmental effects. The #5 

Rotary Kiln is expected to remain in 

operation for the life of the P4 facility. 

Idaho selected wet-FGD with lime as 

the most suitable control technology 

based on the fact that control efficiency 

is comparable to amine scrubbing, has a 

lower cost, and is a proven mature 

technology. Idaho determined that 143 

lb/hr is BART for the #5 Rotary Kiln. 

EPA agrees with this determination. 

2. #5 Rotary Kiln NOX BART Evaluation 

Idaho searched EPA’s RACT/BACT/ 

LAER clearinghouse (RBLC) for 

potential NOX control options. The 

available options include: Combustion 

control, LNB, and SNCR. 

Idaho determined that NOX

combustion controls are technically 

infeasible due to the temperatures 

required for sintering the phosphate ore 

and the change in temperature resulting 

from combustion control. Thermal NOX

is formed at approximately 1300 °C 

(2372 °F) and above. The minimum 

temperature at which sintering of the 

phosphate ore occurs is 1400 °C to 1459 

°C (2552 °F to 2658 °F). Therefore, it is 

not feasible to lower the temperature in 

the kiln to minimize or prevent the 

formation of thermal NOX and still 

sinter the ore. 

Likewise, LNB was eliminated 

because the temperature required for a 

low NOX burner is too low to sinter the 

phosphate ore and form the required 

nodules. Sintering of the ore takes place 

at 1400 °C to 1459 °C, and low NOX

burners must be controlled to operate at 

temperatures well below 1300 °C (2372 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1589 

°F), the temperature at which thermal 

NOX is formed. 

SNCR was eliminated because the 

kiln off gas temperature at the exit of the 

kiln and prior to the existing HydroSonic© particulate control is too low for 

operation of SNCR. 

EPA agrees that there are no 

technically feasible NOX control options 

for the #5 Rotary Kiln. The current 

emission limitation is 3750.7 ton/yr. 

3. #5 Rotary Kiln Particulate Matter 

BART Evaluation 

As described above, the #5 Rotary 

Kiln emissions are currently controlled 

with Hydro-Sonic© high energy venture 

scrubbers to control particulate matter. 

The Tier I operating permit includes a 

federally enforceable limit of 89.4 tons 

of PM/year. 

Idaho conducted a brief evaluation of 

alternative PM control technologies but 

concluded, and EPA agrees, that there 

are no other technically feasible 

alternative control technologies with 

greater control efficiency than the 

existing Hydro-Sonic© high energy 

venturi scrubbers. Thus, the existing PM 

emission limit of 98.4 t/yr constitutes 

BART for this source. 

4. BART for the #9 Furnace CO Flare 

Evaluation 

Ore nodules from the #5 Rotary Kiln 

are combined with coke and quartzite 

and heated in the #9 electric arc 

furnace. The resulting thermal process 

releases elemental phosphorus (as a 

gas), carbon monoxide and entrained 

particulate matter. The furnace off gas is 

cooled to liquefy and collect the 

elemental phosphorus and the 

remaining gases are ducted to the #5 

Rotary Kiln as fuel. Excess furnace off 

gas is treated in a thermal oxidizer and 

flared to the atmosphere. The source of 

concern is the furnace flare, since most 

of the furnace gases fuel the #5 Rotary 

kiln and are controlled by technology 

applied to that source. 

A review of the RBLC Clearinghouse 

revealed there are no available control 

technologies for particulate matter, SO2, 

or NOX for the #9 Furnace CO Flare. The 

RBLC Clearinghouse flare control 

options are exclusively for organic fuels 

and are not applicable for carbon 

monoxide fueled flares. 

EPA agrees with Idaho’s conclusion 

because there are no known retrofit 

control technologies that are technically 

feasible for the Monsanto/P4 #9 Furnace 

Exhaust and CO Flare. EPA is proposing 

to approve the BART determination for 

Monsanto/P4. 

The Monsanto/P4 BART emission 

limits are contained in federally 

enforceable Tier I and Tier II operating 

permits. The BART requirements are 

contained in the Tier II operating 

permit, T2–2009.0109, issued November 

17, 2009. 

H. Improvement in Visibility From 

BART at TASCO, Nampa and 

Monsanto/P4 

Table 10–14 of the SIP submittal 

presents the visibility improvement at 

several Class I areas in Idaho and 

surrounding states from implementation 

of BART at TASCO Nampa and 

Monsanto/P4. The metric used to 

measure improvement is the number of 

days (or reduction in number of days) 

with a deciview impact larger than 0.5 

dv from each BART facility over a three 

year period. 

The greatest improvement from BART 

controls at Monsanto/P4 is seen in the 

Teton Wilderness Area in Wyoming. 

Idaho estimated a reduction in the 

number of days with visibility 

impairment greater than 0.5 dv from 

Monsanto/P4 of 50 days over a three 

year period. Table 10–15 of the SIP 

submittal presents the visibility 

improvement at several other Class I 

areas in Idaho and surrounding states 

from implementation of BART at the 

Monsanto/P4 facility in Soda Springs. 

The greatest improvement from BART 

controls at TASCO Nampa is seen in the 

Eagle Cap Wilderness Area in Oregon, 

with a reduction in days with greater 

than 0.5 dv of 127 days over a three year 

period. 

Idaho included in the SIP submittal, 

federally enforceable Tier I and Tier II 

operating permits for TASCO Nampa 

and Monsanto/P4 which contain the 

necessary emission limitations 

representing BART and schedules for 

compliance. 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Whether Regional 

Haze SIP Submittal Meets Interstate 

Transport Requirements 

In its October 25, 2010, transmittal 

letter, Idaho also indicated that it 

intends the Regional Haze SIP submittal 

also to be a SIP submission for purposes 

of the visibility requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In the submission, Idaho stated that: 

‘‘Idaho’s Regional Haze SIP also satisfies 

the Clean Air Act Interstate Transport 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

Chapters 2 and 13 and the associated 

appendix for chapter 2 describe Idaho’s 

consultation with other states through 

the WRAP. Chapter 9 identifies Idaho’s 

contribution and future visibility 

improvements at mandatory Class I 

Federal Areas impacted by Idaho’s 

emissions.’’ In its SIP transmittal letter, 

the state referred to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii), but from the context it 

is clear that the state intended this 

reference to be to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 

and more particularly to section 

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act 

requires SIP revisions to ‘‘contain’’ 

adequate provisions * * * prohibiting 

* * * any source or other types of 

emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will * * * interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State * * * to protect visibility.’’ 

EPA is proposing to find that the SIP 

submitted by Idaho to address regional 

haze contains adequate provisions to 

meet the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. 

As an initial matter, EPA notes that 

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

explicitly specify how EPA should 

ascertain whether a state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions from sources in that state 

from interfering with measures required 

in another state to protect visibility. 

Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its 

face, and EPA must interpret that 

provision. 

Our 2006 Guidance recommended 

that a state could meet the visibility 

prong of the transport requirements for 

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

of the regional haze SIP, due in 

December 2007. EPA’s reasoning was 

that the development of the regional 

haze SIPs was intended to occur in a 

collaborative environment among the 

states, and that through this process 

states would coordinate on emissions 

controls to protect visibility on an 

interstate basis. In fact, in developing 

their respective reasonable progress 

goals, WRAP states consulted with each 

other through the WRAP’s work groups. 

As a result of this process, the common 

understanding was that each state 

would take action to achieve the 

emissions reductions relied upon by 

other states in their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the RHR. This 

interpretation is consistent with the 

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). 

We believe that with approval of the 

portions of the Idaho RH SIP that we are 

proposing to take action on today, 

Idaho’s SIP will also contain adequate 

provisions to prevent interstate 

transport that would interfere with the 

measures required in other states to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
1590 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

11 ‘‘Indian country’’ is defined under 18 U.S.C. 

1151 as: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the United 

States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of 

any patent, and including rights-of-way running 

through the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian 

communities within the borders of the United 

States, whether within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 

without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian 

allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way running 

through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats 

as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the 

use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been 

formally designated as a reservation. In Idaho, 

Indian country includes, but is not limited to, the 

Coeur d’Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley 

Reservation, the Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, 

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce 

Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce 

Treaty. 

protect visibility. Chapter 13 of the 

Idaho SIP submittal explains the 

consultation process followed by Idaho 

and its neighboring states to meet the 

requirements in the regional haze rule to 

address the interstate transport of 

visibility impairing pollutants and the 

outcome of that process. Section 13.2.3 

indicates that Idaho and neighboring 

states agreed that ‘‘no major 

contributions were identified that 

supported developing new interstate 

strategies, mitigation measures, or 

emissions reductions obligations,’’ and 

that each state could achieve its share of 

emission reductions through the 

implementation of BART and other 

existing measures in state regional haze 

plans. The state agreed that future 

consultation would address any new 

strategies or measures needed. The 

measures addressing BART in the Idaho 

SIP submittal accordingly would appear 

to be adequate to prevent emissions 

from source in Idaho from interfering 

with the measures required to be in the 

regional haze SIPs of its neighbors. 

This conclusion is consistent with the 

analysis conducted by the WRAP, an 

analysis that provides an appropriate 

means for further evaluating whether 

emissions from sources in a state are 

interfering with the visibility programs 

of other states, as contemplated in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As described 

below, EPA’s evaluation shows that the 

BART measures of the Regional Haze 

SIP submittal, that we are proposing to 

approve today, are generally consistent 

with the emissions reductions 

assumptions of the WRAP modeling 

from Idaho sources. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Idaho’s SIP as 

ensuring that emissions from Idaho do 

not interfere with the reasonable 

progress goals of other states. 

In developing their visibility 

projections using photochemical grid 

modeling, the WRAP states assumed a 

certain level of emissions from sources 

within Idaho. The visibility projection 

modeling was in turn used by the states 

to establish their own reasonable 

progress goals. We have reviewed the 

WRAP photochemical modeling 

emissions projections used in the 

demonstration of reasonable progress 

towards natural visibility conditions 

and compared them to the emissions 

limits that will result from the 

imposition of BART on sources in 

Idaho. We have concluded that with the 

emissions reductions achieved by these 

measures, the emissions from Idaho 

sources in the projected inventory for 

2018 (which included both reductions 

and increases) will be below that 

assumed in the WRAP analysis. In 

addition, EPA notes that these 

projections also included estimated 

emissions from a new coal fired power 

plant to be located in Jerome, Idaho. The 

Governor of Idaho subsequently issued 

a ban on the construction of new coal 

fired power plants that is still in effect. 

Thus, EPA anticipates that the actual 

emissions in 2018 may be significantly 

less than the emissions used in 

modeling 2018 conditions because the 

Jerome, Idaho facility will likely not be 

constructed during the time period 

covered by the Regional Haze SIP. 

As a result of the foregoing 

determination, EPA is proposing to find 

that the Idaho Regional Haze SIP 

submission contains the emission 

reductions needed to achieve Idaho’s 

share of emission reductions agreed 

upon through the regional planning 

process. As reflected in its Regional 

Haze SIP submittal, Idaho committed to 

achieve these emission reductions to 

address impacts on visibility on Class I 

areas in surrounding states. The 

portions of the Idaho Regional Haze SIP 

that we are proposing to approve ensure 

that emissions from Idaho will not 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals for neighboring state’s Class I 

areas. EPA is accordingly proposing to 

find that these emission reductions also 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act with respect 

to the visibility prong for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of the Idaho Regional Haze plan, 

submitted on October 25, 2010, as 

meeting the requirements set forth in 

section 169A of the Act and in 40 CFR 

51.308(e) regarding BART. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the Idaho 

submittal as meeting the requirements 

of 51.308(d)(2) and (4)(v) regarding the 

calculation of baseline and natural 

conditions for Craters of the Moon 

National Monument, Sawtooth 

Wilderness Area, and Selway-bitterroot 

Wilderness, and the statewide inventory 

of emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal Area. In 

addition, EPA is proposing to find that 

the BART measures in the Idaho 

Regional Haze plan meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(D)(ii)(II) 

of the CAA with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. Scope of Action 

Idaho has not demonstrated authority 

to implement and enforce IDAPA 

chapter 58 within ‘‘Indian Country’’ as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.11 Therefore, 

EPA proposes that this SIP approval not 

extend to ‘‘Indian Country’’ in Idaho. See 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall 

include enforceable emission limits), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate 

authority under State law to carry out 

SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs 

shall include enforceable emission 

limits). This is consistent with EPA’s 

previous approval of Idaho’s prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) 

program, in which EPA specifically 

disapproved the program for sources 

within Indian Reservations in Idaho 

because the State had not shown it had 

authority to regulate such sources. See 

40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent 

with EPA’s approval of Idaho’s title V 

air operating permits program. See 61 

FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) 

(interim approval does not extend to 

Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 

(October 4, 2001) (full approval does not 

extend to Indian Country). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 1591 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2011–249 Filed 1–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS