RE: Better-than-BART: Another EPA wording proposal on RAVI Higgins, Cortney to: Phil Lorang 05/25/2012 07:39 AM Cc: Martha Keating, Rhea Jones

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney

_ Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: Martha Keating/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rhea Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been replied to.

Thank you!

Phil, can you send a new version of the preamble with that sentence and the other changes worked out through the interagency process (e.g. the deleted sentences).

Thanks, Cortney

From: Phil Lorang [mailto:Lorang.Phil@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:36 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Martha Keating; Rhea Jones; Janet McCabe; Mike Koerber Subject: Re: Better-than-BART: A nother EPA wordin g proposal on RAVI



### This language is acceptable to EPA. Thank you and Dom for facilitating the interagency interactions.

From: "Higgins, Cortney" [Cortney

_ Higgins@omb.eop.gov] Sent: 05/24/2012 08:31 PM GMT To: Phil Lorang Cc: Martha Keating; Rhea Jones; Janet McCabe Subject: RE: Better-than-BART: Another EPA wording proposal on RAVI

Hi Phil, Here’s the response from the interagency reviewers about the sentence

– is this acceptable to EPA?



## Suggestion: A correction to add "Part 51" in the regulatory citation, and the recommendation to remove the comma after "certification" and the suggested movement of “neither.” The language would read as follows:

As a result, this rulemaking alters neither the authority of a federal land manager to certify reasonable attributable visibility impairment nor the obligation of states (or EPA) to respond to a RAVI certification under 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart P (Protection of Visibility).Regards, Cortney

From: Phil Lorang [mailto:Lorang.Phil@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 5:38 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Martha Keating; Mike Koerber; Janet McCabe; Rhea Jones; Todd Hawes; Tim Smith; Don

_ Shepherd@nps.gov ; Carol

_ McCoy@nps.gov ; John

_ V imont@nps.gov ; meredith

_ bond@fws.gov ; sandra

_ v

_ silva@fws.gov ; Susan

_ Johnson@nps.gov ; tim

_ allen@fws.gov ; A cheson, A nn -FS; A nderson, Bret A -FS Subject: Re: Better-than-BART: A nother EPA wordin g proposal on RAVI

Cortney*

Janet McCabe asked us to convey this to you and the other federal agency contacts as another approach that would be acceptable to EPA. In the interest of time, I've include some but not all of them, so please forward it to those I've missed. I don't have addresses for Rachel Jacobson and Harris Sherman, for example.



### The EPA proposed to leave unchanged the existing regulatory language regarding geographic enhancements. The purpose of this language is to allow a market-based system to accommodate actions taken under the RAVI provisions. The EPA first adopted such language in the 1999 Regional Haze Rule, 64 FR 35757, and used it again in issuing regulations addressing our determination that CAIR provides for greater reasonable progress than BART, 70 FR 39156, and again in issuing regulations addressing trading program alternatives to BART in general, 71 FR 60612, 60627. In light of the fact that our proposal did not request comment on the interplay of the RAVI requirements in 40 CFR 51.302-306 with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, we are not adopting any clarifying interpretation at this time. As a result, this rulemaking neither alters the authority of a federal land manager to certify reasonable attributable visibility impairment under 40 CFR 51.302, nor the obligation of states (or EPA) to respond to a RAVI certification. 

### We expect at a later date to clarify the scope of the RAVI requirements through a rule amendment, general guidance, or action on a SIP or FIP in the context of a specific RAVI case.* Whatever the form, we intend to provide an opportunity for public comment before applying a new interpretation.

_____ * A RAVI certification has been made for the Sherbourne County Generating Station (Sherco) in Minnesota, by the Department of the Interior on October 21, 2009.

As indicated in the call, we would also accept restoring the second sentence of the footnote: 

### As Minnesota is included in the Transport Rule, the EPA expects that the scope of the RAVI requirements as applied to sources subject to the Transport Rule will be clarified by action on the certification.

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA 919-541-5463_ _______ * My apologies for my past misspelling!