[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11858-11879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4711]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0219-201148; FRL-9639-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of North Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the North 
Carolina state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 
North Carolina through the North Carolina Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), on December 17, 
2007, that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. 
This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any 
existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I 
areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air 
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area 
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are 
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of 
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to implement the 
regional haze requirements for North Carolina on the basis that the 
revision, as a whole, strengthens the North Carolina SIP. In a separate 
action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the North Carolina 
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze 
SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, EPA is not proposing to take 
action in this rulemaking to address the State's reliance on CAIR to 
meet certain regional haze requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0219, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a080f04000b0703044406130405180b0f2a0f1a0b440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bedcdbd0d4dfd3d7d090d2c7d0d1ccdfdbfedbcedf90d9d1c8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0219, Regulatory Development Section, Air 
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

[[Page 11859]]

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0219.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at 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 through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The 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 email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email 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. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni, 
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Sara 
Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by 
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#354254415047465a5b1b46544754755045541b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="037462776671706c6d2d70627162436673622d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>. Michele Notarianni can be 
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2947465d485b40484747400744404a414c454c694c5948074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6608091207140f0708080f480b0f050e030a032603160748010910">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's regional haze 
submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, 
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
    4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in North Carolina and Surrounding Areas
    5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    6. BART
    7. RPGs
    D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Consultation With States and FLMs
    1. Consultation With Other States
    2. Consultation With the FLMs
    G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of North Carolina's December 
17, 2007, SIP revision addressing regional haze under CAA sections 
301(a) and 110(k)(3) because the revision as a whole strengthens the 
North Carolina SIP. This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying 
Technical Support Document \1\ (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's 
proposed limited approval action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled ``Technical Support 
Document for North Carolina Regional Haze SIP Submittal,'' is 
included in the public docket for this action.
    \2\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the 
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and 
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the 
North Carolina regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's 
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR 
to meet certain regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 82219 (December 
30, 2011). EPA is not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on 
issues associated with North Carolina's reliance on CAIR in its 
regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed limited disapproval of 
North Carolina's regional haze SIP are accepted at the docket for EPA's 
December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729). The comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed 
rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., 
sulfates,

[[Page 11860]]

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their 
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>X</INF>), and in some cases, ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) and 
volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in 
the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs visibility 
by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the 
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and 
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and 
eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas 
\4\ (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See 
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I 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. See 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. See 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 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.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When the term ``Class I area'' is used in this action, it means a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment 
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment.'' See 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 preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first 
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no 
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Albuquerque/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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and 
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, 
tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments 
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the 
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to

[[Page 11861]]

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is 
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light 
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a 
logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking 
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because 
each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility 
perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in 
visibility at one deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that 
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural 
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead 
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility 
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year 
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state 
with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult 
with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states 
with emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at 
the Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific

[[Page 11862]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 emissions limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set 
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, 
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other 
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH<INF>3</INF> compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements 
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART 
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide 
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain 
subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 need 
not require affected BART-eligible electrical generating (EGUs) to 
install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF>. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address 
direct emissions of PM, states were still required to conduct a BART 
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. 
Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to EPA. 
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550F.3d 1175 (DC Cir. 2008).
    EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport 
of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> in the eastern United States. See 
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve 
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART 
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219. 
Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 
allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under 
the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken 
final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 
issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in 
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the 
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit 
stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the 
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA 
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA 
is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the 
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into

[[Page 11863]]

account in developing their LTS: (1) Emissions reductions due to 
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address 
RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; 
(3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the 
RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke 
management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes 
including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; 
(6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and 
(7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes 
in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed 
by the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state 
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze 
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's 
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
    <bullet> Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
    <bullet> Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
    <bullet> Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible, in electronic format;
    <bullet> Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
    <bullet> Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's regional haze submittal?

    On December 17, 2007, NCDAQ submitted revisions to the North 
Carolina SIP to address regional haze in the State's Class I areas as 
required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    North Carolina has five Class I areas within its borders: Great 
Smoky Mountains National Park, Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area, 
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, Shining Rock Wilderness Area, and 
Swanquarter Wilderness Area. Two of these Class I areas (Great Smoky 
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer) also fall within the geographic boundaries 
of Tennessee. Therefore, both North Carolina and Tennessee are 
responsible for developing their own regional haze SIPs that address 
these two Class I areas and for consulting with other states that 
impact the areas. The two states worked together to determine 
appropriate RPGs, including consulting with other states that impact 
these two Class I areas, as discussed in section IV.F.1 of this 
rulemaking. In addition, both North Carolina and Tennessee are 
responsible for describing their own long-term emissions strategies, 
their role in the consultation processes, and how their particular 
state SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's regional haze 
regulations.
    The North Carolina regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for 
visibility improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to 
achieve those RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period 
ending in 2018. In developing the LTS for each area, North Carolina 
considered both emissions sources inside and outside of North Carolina 
that may cause or

[[Page 11864]]

contribute to visibility impairment in North Carolina's Class I areas. 
The State also identified and considered emissions sources within North 
Carolina that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class 
I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The 
VISTAS RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses 
used to make these determinations, including state-by-state 
contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which 
included the five areas in North Carolina and those areas affected by 
emissions from North Carolina.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, North Carolina calculated baseline/current and 
natural visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as 
summarized below (and as further described in sections III.B.1 and 
III.B.2 of EPA's TSD to this Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to the 2003 
EPA guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is 
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\8\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction. North Carolina opted to use the default estimates for the 
natural concentrations combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation'' for 
all of its Class I areas. Using this approach, natural visibility 
conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately 
for each Class I area by VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emissions sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \9\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new 
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in numerous published papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and 
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. 
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 
Workgroup. September 2006. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    NCDAQ estimated baseline visibility conditions at the State's five 
Class I areas using available monitoring data from four IMPROVE 
monitoring sites. The Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area does not 
contain an IMPROVE monitor. In cases where onsite monitoring is not 
available, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) requires states to use the most 
representative monitoring available for the 2000-2004 period to 
establish baseline visibility conditions, in consultation with EPA. 
North Carolina used, and EPA is proposing to find adequate North 
Carolina's use of, 2000-2004 data from the IMPROVE monitor at Great 
Smoky Mountains National Park for the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness 
Area. The IMPROVE Steering Committee considers the IMPROVE monitor at 
the Great Smoky Mountains to be representative of visibility in Joyce 
Kilmer. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is the nearest Class I 
area and contiguous to Joyce Kilmer and they possess similar 
characteristics, such as meteorology and topography.
    As explained in section III.B, for the first regional haze SIP, 
baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. A 
five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated 
for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at 
each North Carolina Class I area. IMPROVE data records for Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park and the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area for the 
period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA requirements for data completeness. 
See page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. Shining Rock and 
Swanquarter Class I areas had missing data in more than one year 
between the years 2000 to 2004. Data records for these sites were 
filled using data substitution procedures. Tables 3.3-1, 3.3-2, 3.3-3, 
and 3.3-4 from Appendix G of the North Carolina regional haze SIP, also 
provided in section III.B.3 of EPA's TSD to this action, list the 20 
percent best and worst days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 for 
the Great Smoky Mountains, Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and 
Swanquarter areas, respectively. These data are also provided at the 
following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the North Carolina Class I areas, baseline visibility 
conditions on the 20 percent worst days range between approximately 
24.5 and 30.5 deciviews. Natural visibility in these areas is predicted 
to be between approximately 11 and 12 deciviews on the 20 percent worst 
days. The natural and baseline conditions for North Carolina's Class I 
areas for both the 20 percent worst and

[[Page 11865]]

best days are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for North Carolina's
                              Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average for     Average for
              Class I area                   20% worst    20% best  days
                                          days (dv \10\)       (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions:
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park.           11.05            4.54
    Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness              11.05            4.54
     Area...............................
    Linville Gorge Wilderness Area......           11.19            4.08
    Shining Rock Wilderness Area........           11.47            2.51
    Swanquarter Wilderness Area.........           11.55            5.46
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-
 2004):
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park.           30.28           13.58
    Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness              30.28           13.58
     Area...............................
    Linville Gorge Wilderness Area......           28.77           11.11
    Shining Rock Wilderness Area........           28.46            7.69
    Swanquarter Wilderness Area.........           24.74           11.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, North Carolina considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(``glidepath'') and the emissions reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is 
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater than, less than, or 
equivalent to the glidepath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one 
for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, 
for its five Class I areas. North Carolina constructed the graph for 
the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 
Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from 
the baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level 
of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 
2064 for its areas. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, 
straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to 
depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of 
the SIP. North Carolina's SIP shows that the State's RPGs for its areas 
provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days 
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in 
visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same period, in 
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce Kilmer Class I areas, the 
overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is 
the difference between baseline visibility of 30.28 deciviews for the 
20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.05 deciviews, i.e., 
19.23 deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would 
require an approximate improvement of 0.321 deciview per year (i.e., 
19.23 deciviews/60 years) to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the 
14-year period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve visibility 
improvement at least equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 
20 percent worst days at the Great Smoky Mountain and Joyce Kilmer 
areas, North Carolina would need to project at least 4.49 deciviews 
over the first implementation period (i.e., 0.321 deciview x 14 years = 
4.49 deciviews) of visibility improvement from the 30.28 deciviews 
baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 25.79 
deciviews in 2018. As discussed below in section IV.C.7, for the Great 
Smoky Mountain and Joyce Kilmer areas, North Carolina projects a 6.78 
deciview improvement to visibility from the 30.28 deciview baseline to 
23.50 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 
1.47 deciview improvement to 12.11 deciviews from the baseline 
visibility of 13.58 deciviews for the 20 percent least impaired days. 
Similar computations can be made for the other three North Carolina 
Class I areas.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by a state for 
achieving its RPGs. North Carolina's LTS for the first implementation 
period addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and 
local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the 
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The North Carolina LTS was 
developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an 
evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the 
emissions units within North Carolina and in surrounding states that 
likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's 
Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on 
all controls required or expected under federal and state regulations 
for the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected 
visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the 
State's Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory 
factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified 
emissions units to determine if additional reasonable controls were 
required.
    In a separate action proposing limited disapproval of the regional 
haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on 
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See 
76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA proposed a limited 
disapproval of North Carolina's regional haze SIP submittal insofar as 
the SIP relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is not taking action on 
that aspect of North Carolina's regional haze SIP in this action. 
Comments on the December 30, 2011, proposed determination are accepted 
at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. The comment period for EPA's 
December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 
28, 2012.

[[Page 11866]]

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from North Carolina. 
The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions 
and applying reductions expected from federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, and SO<INF>2</INF>. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in 
section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which 
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> do 
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while 
emissions inventories were also developed for NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC, 
and applicable federal VOC reductions were incorporated into North 
Carolina's regional haze analyses, North Carolina did not further 
evaluate NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC emissions sources for potential 
controls under BART or reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source 
classifications: stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are 
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, 
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. 
Stationary area sources are those sources whose individual emissions 
are relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the 
collective emissions from the source category could be significant. 
VISTAS estimated emissions on a countywide level for the inventory 
categories of: (a) Stationary area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 
mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can move but does not use 
roadways); and (c) biogenic sources (which are natural sources of 
emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile source emissions are 
estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are summed to the 
countywide level.
    There are many federal and state control programs being implemented 
that VISTAS and North Carolina anticipate will reduce emissions between 
the end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from 
these control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility 
improvement by 2018 in the North Carolina Class I areas. The control 
programs relied upon by North Carolina include CAIR; EPA's 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA); 
Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(sss), ``Multipollutant Control for Electric 
Utility Steam Generating Units;'' consent decrees for Tampa Electric, 
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, and 
American Electric Power; NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC reductions from the 
control rules in 1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and 
Northern Kentucky; North Carolina's NO<INF>X</INF> Reasonably Available 
Control Technology state rule for Philip Morris USA and Norandal USA in 
the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area; 
federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for on-road trucks and 
buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; federal 
large spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-
road diesel rules. Controls from various federal Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) rules were also utilized in the development 
of the 2018 emissions inventory projections. These MACT rules include 
the industrial boiler/process heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial 
Boiler MACT''), the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal 
combustion engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT 
standards.
    Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and 
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\11\ This MACT was vacated 
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA 
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on 
June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 
(76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from 
the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and North Carolina did not 
redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though 
North Carolina's modeling is based on the vacated Industrial Boiler 
MACT limits, the State's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be 
affected because the expected reductions due to the vacated rule were 
relatively small compared to the State's total SO<INF>2</INF>, 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) 
emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.4 percent, depending on the 
pollutant, of the projected 2018 SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 
PM<INF>10</INF> inventory). Thus, EPA does not expect that differences 
between the vacated and final Industrial Boiler MACT emissions limits 
would affect the adequacy of the existing North Carolina regional haze 
SIP. If there is a need to address discrepancies between projected 
emissions reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the 
Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects 
North Carolina to do so in the State's five-year progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below in Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emissions inventories for North Carolina.

                                              Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          61,484         196,731          26,953          36,539           1,233         522,093
Area....................................................         250,044          41,517          83,520         300,838         162,183           5,815
On-Road Mobile..........................................         263,766         327,329           4,623           6,579           9,702          12,420
Off-Road Mobile.........................................          94,480          84,284           7,348           7,348              65           7,693
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         669,774         649,861         122,444         351,304         173,183         548,021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 11867]]


                                              Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for North Carolina
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                VOC             NOX            PM2.5           PM10             NH3             SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................          71,247          94,276          37,789          48,354           2,073         148,972
Area....................................................         203,132          49,514          93,406         338,872         181,333           6,674
On-Road Mobile..........................................         101,099          87,791           2,123           4,392          14,065           1,481
Off-road Mobile.........................................          61,327          49,046           4,069           4,298              83             905
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         436,805         280,627         137,387         395,916         197,554         158,032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 
southeastern states, including North Carolina. The modeling analysis is 
a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the 
modeling system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
    <bullet> Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model 
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic meteorological model routinely used for 
urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and regional 
haze regulatory modeling studies.
    <bullet> Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that 
generates hourly gridded speciated emissions inputs of mobile, non-road 
mobile, area, point, fire and biogenic emissions sources for 
photochemical grid models.
    <bullet> Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale 
Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model 
capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a 
regional scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was 
CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through VISTAS with a module for 
Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and transparent manner that was 
also subjected to outside peer review.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer cells that covers the 
10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and 
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national 
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells that covers the continental 
United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the 
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection 
of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating 
baseline air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air 
quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. 
VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection 
of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period 
of meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS 
states modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use 
of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM<INF>2.5,</INF> and Regional Haze, located 
at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-002), April 2007, and EPA document, 
Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
Regional Haze Regulations, located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated 
November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model 
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of North Carolina 
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required 
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and 
modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are 
consistent with EPA's RHR and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. 
EPA proposes to accept the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS 
and to determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of 
progress because the modeling system was chosen and simulated according 
to EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to concur with the VISTAS model 
performance procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 
tool for the regional haze assessments for the North Carolina LTS and 
regional haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source 
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and 
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emissions sensitivity model runs 
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various 
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based 
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the 
major contributor to PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass and visibility impairment at 
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent 
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate

[[Page 11868]]

accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at 
the inland Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the 
calculated light extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I 
areas in the VISTAS states. In particular, sulfate particles resulting 
from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions contribute to the calculated light 
extinction on the haziest days roughly 74 percent for the Swanquarter 
area, and 84 to 87 percent for the Great Smoky Mountains, Linville 
Gorge, and Shining Rock areas, depending on the area. In contrast, 
ammonium nitrate contributed less than five percent of the calculated 
light extinction at the VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 
visibility days. Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) accounted 
for 20 percent or less of the light extinction on the 20 percent worst 
visibility days at the VISTAS Class I areas.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either 
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'') 
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g. terrain, 
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model 
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region and to describe 
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types 
of Class I areas. All of North Carolina's Class I areas, except for 
Swanquarter, are ``inland'' areas. Swanquarter is considered a 
``coastal'' area.
    Results from VISTAS' emissions sensitivity analyses indicate that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are the 
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst 
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS. North Carolina concluded that 
reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in 
the VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits for the 
North Carolina Class I areas.
    Because ammonium nitrate is a small contributor to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days at the 
inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which include all of the North Carolina 
Class I areas except for the Swanquarter area, the benefits of reducing 
NO<INF>X</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions at these sites are small. 
Some of the worst days at Swanquarter, and other coastal sites within 
the VISTAS region, occur in the winter when ammonium nitrate has a 
somewhat larger contribution to visibility impairment. North Carolina 
concluded that reducing ammonia emissions would be more beneficial for 
reducing ammonium nitrate contributions to visibility impairment in 
wintertime than further reducing NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from either 
ground-level or point (elevated) sources. NCDAQ notes that for 
Swanquarter, the numerous hog farms in eastern North Carolina are the 
likely primary emissions sources for ammonia.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from 
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility 
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of 
VOC emissions are minor compared to the biogenic sources. Therefore, 
controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC emissions would have little, 
if any, visibility benefits at the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, 
including North Carolina. The sensitivity analyses also show that 
reducing primary carbon from point sources, ground level sources, or 
fires is projected to have small to no visibility benefit at the VISTAS 
Class I areas.
    North Carolina considered the factors listed under 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section III.E. of this action to develop its LTS 
as described below. North Carolina, in conjunction with VISTAS, 
demonstrated in its SIP that elemental carbon (a product of highway and 
non-road diesel engines, agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and 
wildfires), fine soils (a product of construction activities and 
activities that generate fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively 
minor contributors to visibility impairment at the Class I areas in 
North Carolina. North Carolina considered agricultural and forestry 
smoke management techniques to address visibility impacts from 
elemental carbon. NCDAQ stated in its SIP that it is working with the 
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources to develop a smoke 
management program that utilizes basic smoke management practices and 
addresses the issues laid out in the EPA's 1998 Interim Air Quality 
Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. Additionally, NCDAQ is 
working with the North Carolina Department of Agriculture to develop a 
Memorandum of Understanding regarding agricultural burning.
    With regard to fine soils, the State considered those activities 
that generate fugitive dust, including construction activities. With 
regard to construction activities, the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation's Division of Highways has issued regulations addressing 
control of erosion, siltation, and pollution from construction 
activities. In addition, NCDAQ promulgated state rule 15A NCAC 
02D.0540, ``Particulates From Fugitive Dust Emission Sources,'' 
effective on September 1, 2007, to control particulates from fugitive 
dust emissions sources generated within plant boundaries from 
activities such as ``unloading and loading areas, process areas, 
stockpiles, stock pile working, plant parking lots, and plant roads 
(including access roads and haul roads).'' The State has chosen not to 
develop controls for fine soils in this first implementation period 
because of their relatively minor contribution to visibility 
impairment.
    With regard to ammonia emissions from agricultural sources, NCDAQ, 
as a continuation of the State's CSA, initiated the Climate Action 
Planning Advisory Group to develop options for the reduction of 
greenhouse gas emissions in North Carolina, including the emissions 
from agriculture and agricultural waste in North Carolina. The Group 
issued a report that supports expanded research, regulatory actions, 
and grant guarantees as key implementation tools to accomplish the 
expanded utilization of methane (a greenhouse gas) from hog/cattle 
waste for energy. The report also highlights improved waste management 
practices as important. A co-benefit of any resulting measures will be 
the reduction of ammonia emissions from animal waste. In addition, the 
North Carolina Legislature approved a bill on July 26, 2007, that 
permanently bans new lagoons at hog farms and orders state regulators 
to set environmental standards for new hog farm waste systems. The new 
legislation phases-out the use of waste lagoons by hog farmers, 
replacing them with more environmentally friendly systems.
    EPA preliminarily concurs with the State's technical demonstration 
showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not 
significant contributors to visibility in the State's Class I areas, 
and therefore, proposes to find that North Carolina has adequately 
satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA's TSD to this Federal Register 
action and North Carolina's SIP provide more details on the State's 
consideration of these factors for North Carolina's LTS.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that 
reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial 
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to North Carolina, the VISTAS sensitivity 
analysis projects visibility benefits on the 20 percent worst days at 
the State's four inland Class I areas from

[[Page 11869]]

SO<INF>2</INF> reductions from EGUs in eight of the 10 VISTAS states: 
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Virginia, and West Virginia. For the Swanquarter area, reductions from 
EGUs in North Carolina and South Carolina would have the greatest 
benefits; the contributions from other VISTAS states are comparatively 
small. Additional, smaller benefits are projected for North Carolina's 
Class I areas from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions from non-utility 
industrial point sources in the VISTAS states. SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
contributions to visibility impairment from other RPO regions are 
comparatively small in contrast to the VISTAS states' contributions, 
and thus, controlling sources outside of the VISTAS region is predicted 
to provide less significant improvements in visibility in the Class I 
areas in VISTAS.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, 
North Carolina concluded that reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
EGU and non-EGU point sources in certain VISTAS states would have the 
greatest visibility benefits for the North Carolina Class I areas. The 
State chose to focus solely on evaluating certain SO<INF>2</INF> 
sources contributing to visibility impairment to the State's Class I 
areas for additional emissions reductions for reasonable progress in 
this first implementation period (described in sections IV.C.4 and 
IV.C.5 of this action). EPA proposes to agree with the State's analyses 
and conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source categories 
that most contribute to visibility impairment in the North Carolina 
Class I areas, and proposes to find the State's approach to focus on 
developing a LTS that includes largely additional measures for point 
sources of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to be appropriate.
    SO<INF>2</INF> sources for which it is demonstrated that no 
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation 
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in 
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional 
controls on these SO<INF>2</INF> sources evaluated in the first 
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a 
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward 
natural visibility conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to 
avoid further degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in 
subsequent implementation periods, the State may use different criteria 
for identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other 
pollutants as visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in North Carolina and Surrounding Areas
    As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action, through 
comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian 
Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\12\ the VISTAS states concluded that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions account for 
the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas 
in VISTAS states, including those areas in North Carolina. Utility and 
non-utility boilers are the main sources of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
within the southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a methodology 
for North Carolina that enables the State to focus its reasonable 
progress analysis on those geographic regions and source categories 
that impact visibility at its Class I areas. Recognizing that there was 
neither sufficient time nor adequate resources available to evaluate 
all emissions units within a given area of influence (AOI) around each 
of the Class I areas that North Carolina's sources impact, the State 
established a threshold to determine which emissions units would be 
evaluated for reasonable progress control. In applying this 
methodology, NCDAQ first calculated the fractional contribution to 
visibility impairment from all emissions units within the 
SO<INF>2</INF> AOI for its Class I areas, and from those units within 
the SO<INF>2</INF> AOIs surrounding Class I areas in other states 
potentially impacted by emissions from emissions units in North 
Carolina. The State then identified those emissions units with a 
contribution of one percent or more to the visibility impairment at 
that particular Class I area, and evaluated each of these units for 
control measures for reasonable progress using the following four 
``reasonable progress factors'' required under 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for 
compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful life of the emissions unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a 
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend 
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse 
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related 
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.'' States cooperated 
with FLMs, EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and academia 
to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid 
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the 
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's SO<INF>2</INF> AOI methodology captured greater 
than 60 percent of the total point source SO<INF>2</INF> contribution 
to visibility impairment in four of the five Class I areas in North 
Carolina, and required an evaluation of 21 emissions units at seven 
facilities in North Carolina. At the remaining Class I area, 
Swanquarter, the one percent threshold represents 47 percent of the 
total point source SO<INF>2</INF> contribution, while requiring an 
evaluation of 12 additional units at six facilities in North Carolina. 
The NCDAQ also looked at what sources in North Carolina may be 
impacting Class I areas located outside of the State, as well as what 
sources located outside of North Carolina may be impacting the North 
Carolina Class I areas. By applying the State's AOI SO<INF>2</INF> 
methodology, the only North Carolina source that was identified as 
potentially impacting visibility in a Class I area outside the State 
was the Duke Power-Dan River facility, which may impact the James River 
Face Wilderness Area in Virginia. To capture a higher percentage of 
emissions units contributing to the total sulfate visibility impairment 
would involve an evaluation of many more units that have substantially 
less impact.
    NCDAQ believes that the one percent threshold is appropriate given 
the contribution to the total sulfate visibility impairment at each 
Class I area and the limited resources available to conduct a unit-by-
unit evaluation for reasonable progress. EPA believes the approach 
developed by VISTAS and implemented for the Class I areas in North 
Carolina is a reasonable methodology to prioritize the most significant 
contributors to regional haze and to identify sources to assess for 
reasonable progress control. The approach is consistent with EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and 
North Carolina was objective and based on several analyses, including 
the evaluation of a large universe of emissions units within and 
surrounding the State of North Carolina and all of the 18 VISTAS Class 
I areas. It also included an analysis of the VISTAS emissions units 
affecting nearby Class I areas surrounding the VISTAS states that are 
located in other RPOs' Class I areas.
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    NCDAQ identified 34 emissions units at 14 facilities in North 
Carolina (see Table 4) with SO<INF>2</INF> emissions that were above 
the State's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation

[[Page 11870]]

because they were modeled to fall within the SO<INF>2</INF> AOI of any 
Class I area and have a one percent or greater contribution to the 
sulfate visibility impairment in at least one Class I area.\13\ Of 
these 34 units, seven emissions units were not subject to a reasonable 
progress analysis because they were already subject to BART or had shut 
down. In addition, as discussed in section IV.C.5.B, 16 units are 
subject to CAIR, and NCDAQ concluded that no additional controls for 
SO<INF>2</INF> beyond CAIR for subject EGUs are reasonable for this 
first implementation period. NCDAQ evaluated 11 units at five 
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See also EPA's TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from 
the North Carolina SIP, Appendix H.

  Table 4--North Carolina Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to
                      Reasonable Progress Analysis:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress
 Analysis
    Blue Ridge Paper Products--Canton Mill G-24, G-25, G-65, G-66
    Cogentrix Kenansville--Gen1
    PCS Phosphate Company Inc.--Aurora G-1034, G-1035
    Weyerhaeuser Company--New Bern G-42
    Weyerhaeuser Company--Plymouth G-140, G-143, G-148
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to Reasonable Progress
 Analysis:
    EGUs Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area:
        Carolina Power & Light Asheville Steam E1, E2
        Duke Energy Corporation--Buck Steam Station G-4, G-5
        Duke Energy Corporation--Dan River Station G-21
        Duke Energy Corporation--Cliffside Steam G-86, G-87, G-88
        Duke Energy Corporation--Marshall Steam G-1, G-2
        Duke Energy Corporation--Riverbend Steam G-17, G-19, G-20
        L V Sutton Steam Electric Plant G-188
        Progress Energy--F Lee Plant G-2, G-3
    Emissions Units Subject to BART:
        Blue Ridge Paper Products--Canton Mill G-26, G-31, G-32
    Emissions Units that Shut Down:
        PCS Phosphate Company Inc.--Aurora G-1032, G-1033
        Ecusta Business Development Center LLC--G-28, G-29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Facilities With Emissions Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    NCDAQ analyzed whether SO<INF>2</INF> controls should be required 
for 11 emissions units at five facilities based on a consideration of 
the four factors set out in the CAA and EPA's regulations. For the 
limited purpose of evaluating the cost of compliance for the reasonable 
progress assessment in this first regional haze SIP, NCDAQ believed 
that it was not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a greater 
economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy. The facility-
by-facility costs for EGUs under CSA ranged from 912 to 1,922 dollars 
per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> removed ($/ton SO<INF>2</INF>), and the 
average costs per utility system ranged from $1,231 to $1,375/ton 
SO<INF>2</INF>. These costs were estimated using the capital costs from 
the CSA 2006 compliance plans and the projected operating costs 
provided by Duke Energy and Progress Energy. These costs were used as a 
guide in determining cost effectiveness.
    During the current reasonable progress assessment, no emissions 
units in North Carolina were identified for additional control since no 
measures were found to be below the cost threshold discussed above. 
NCDAQ did not perform an exhaustive review of the remaining three 
statutory factors for reasonable progress since it did not identify any 
cost-effective control measures for the specific sources with 
contributions to Class I areas in North Carolina or neighboring states. 
Neither the time necessary for compliance nor the energy and non-air 
quality environmental impacts of compliance appear to be out of the 
ordinary for the control measures identified for these facilities. A 
likely short remaining useful life for two units was noted in one case, 
but a longer remaining useful life would not alter the reasonable 
progress determination for those units.
    North Carolina also noted that, in order to show continued progress 
past 2018, the criteria will likely be different in the next reasonable 
progress assessment in order to maintain continuous visibility 
improvement toward natural background conditions by 2064. The 
facilities in North Carolina that have units that contribute at least 
one percent to visibility impairment at any Class I area in the State, 
or in neighboring states, were sent letters from NCDAQ indicating that 
while no additional controls were identified during this reasonable 
progress assessment, these sources will evaluate possible 
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction strategies for the next regional haze SIP due 
July 31, 2018.
1. Blue Ridge Paper Products
    Four coal-fired Power Boilers at Blue Ridge Paper Products were 
evaluated for reasonable progress: No. 4 Power Boiler (G-66) with a 
capacity of 535 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) and 
boilers G-24, G-25, and G-65, each with a capacity of 364-399 MMBtu/hr. 
Boilers G-24, G-25, and G-65 burn a washed and blended coal from 
different portions of the coal seam at the Apollo mine to meet Blue 
Ridge Paper's specifications for heat, ash and sulfur content. Coal 
from the Apollo mine has high heat content, low to moderate ash, and 
low to moderate sulfur, and it averages from 1.4 to 1.5 pounds 
SO<INF>2</INF> per million British Thermal Units (lbs SO<INF>2</INF>/
MMBtu). The electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) on these boilers perform 
well on this moderate sulfur coal and test well below applicable PM 
standards. They are not designed, however, to burn low sulfur coal. Ash 
from low sulfur coal has a higher resistivity than ash from the 
moderate sulfur coal that Blue Ridge Paper burns in these boilers. The 
No. 4 Power Boiler burns washed, low sulfur coal subject to new source 
performance standards (NSPS) with a sulfur limit of 1.2 lbs 
SO<INF>2</INF>/MMBtu.
    Based on information from the company, this lower sulfur coal is 
$75-$90/ton SO<INF>2</INF>, and the other coal used at

[[Page 11871]]

the facility is $65/ton SO<INF>2</INF>. The cost difference is $10-25/
ton SO<INF>2</INF>. The company burned 277,214 tons of higher sulfur 
coal in 2005; switching to lower sulfur coal would cost approximately 
$2,772,140-$6,930,350 extra per year. If 1,400 tons of SO<INF>2</INF> 
were reduced by switching from the current higher sulfur coal (one 
percent sulfur or approximately 1.6 lb SO<INF>2</INF>/MMBtu) to lower 
sulfur coal (0.75 percent sulfur or approximately 1.2 lb 
SO<INF>2</INF>/MMBtu) at the 2005 rate of coal consumption, associated 
costs would range from $1,980-$4,950/ton SO<INF>2</INF> with an average 
cost of $3,465/ton SO<INF>2</INF>. NCDAQ determined that the cost for 
add-on control technology for these units ranges from $12,055 to 
$100,961/ton SO<INF>2</INF>. NCDAQ concluded that there are no cost-
effective controls available for these units at this time within the 
cost threshold established for this reasonable progress assessment. 
Although NCDAQ has concluded that there are no cost-effective controls 
for this reasonable progress period, the State acknowledges that the 
emissions from Blue Ridge Paper Products impact North Carolina's inland 
Class I areas. NCDAQ notified the company that although additional 
controls are not required during this implementation period, the State 
may require the installation and operation of controls for future 
implementation periods. NCDAQ is committed to working with this company 
over the next review period and encouraging the company to modernize 
some of its processes with more efficient equipment with lower 
emissions.
2. PCS Phosphate
    Two of the four sulfuric acid units at PCS Phosphate identified for 
further analysis under reasonable progress remain in operation (units 
1034 and 1035). On February 7, 2011, NCDAQ provided a technical 
supplement to the December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP for these units. 
The two PCS Phosphate units currently utilize dual absorption systems 
with a vanadium catalyst. The four technologies reviewed included 
sodium bisulfite scrubbing, molecular sieve, ammonia scrubbing, and 
dual absorption process with cesium-promoted catalyst.
    The first three technologies were rejected because they have not 
been commercially demonstrated to reliably meet current NSPS and state 
permit limits. The use of cesium-promoted catalyst was further 
evaluated, looking at three scenarios. The first scenario evaluated, 
changing to a cesium-promoted catalyst without making other major 
capital investments, was estimated to cost $2,879/ton SO<INF>2</INF> 
and reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by only 165 tons per year. This 
estimate was based on reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 3.8 to 3.5 
lbs SO<INF>2</INF>/ton of sulfuric acid produced. The other two 
scenarios evaluated meeting a 2.0 lbs SO<INF>2</INF>/ton of sulfuric 
acid produced limit by either making operational changes or by 
modifying the reactor vessel. The operational changes could be made 
without significant capital expenditures but would significantly reduce 
production capacity. Modifying the unit to increase the amount of 
catalyst available required significant capital investment. NCDAQ 
estimated that these options would reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 
2,073 tons/year with a cost effectiveness of approximately $11,347/ton 
of SO<INF>2</INF> reduced for the operational change and a cost 
effectiveness of approximately $12,816 to $13,651/ton SO<INF>2</INF> 
for the unit modification. NCDAQ also cited modeling analyses which 
concluded that the visibility improvement at the Swanquarter Wilderness 
Area resulting from reducing the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions rate by 1.0 
lb SO<INF>2</INF>/ton sulfuric acid produced (i.e., a change in 
emissions rate from 4.0 to 3.0 lbs SO<INF>2</INF>/ton sulfuric acid 
produced) would only be 0.16 deciview. Therefore, NCDAQ concluded that 
there are no cost-effective controls available for these units at this 
time within the cost threshold established for this reasonable progress 
assessment. NCDAQ notified the company that although additional 
controls are not being required during this planning period, the State 
may require the installation and operation of controls for future-
planning periods.
3. Weyerhaeuser--Plymouth
    Weyerhaeuser--Plymouth has three power boilers subject to analysis: 
Riley No. 1 Combination Boiler, No. 1 Hog Fuel Boiler, and No. 2 Hog 
Fuel Boiler. The Riley No. 1 Combination Boiler burns coal, No. 6 fuel 
oil, Low Volume High Concentration (LVHC) gases, and Stripper Off Gas 
(SOG) gases and is fired at 624 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input. The No. 1 
Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog fuel (wood waste), No. 6 fuel oil, coal, used 
oil, sludge, and High Volume Low Concentration (HVLC) gases. This 
boiler is fired at 835 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from hog fuel, 617 
MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from No. 6 fuel oil, or for combination 
firing, 701.2 and 319.8 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from hog fuel and 
coal, respectively. The No. 2 Hog Fuel Boiler burns hog fuel, No. 6 
fuel oil, coal, used oil, sludge, HVLC, LVHC, and SOG gases. It is 
fired at 889 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from combined fuels or 800 
MMBtu/hr maximum heat input from No. 6 fuel oil.
    NCDAQ did not identify any available controls for the Hog Boiler 1 
or 2. For the Riley Boiler, the only available control that NCDAQ 
identified is a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber at a cost of 
$20,460/ton SO<INF>2</INF>. Therefore, NCDAQ concluded that there are 
no cost-effective controls for these units at this time within the cost 
threshold established for this reasonable progress assessment.
4. Weyerhaeuser--New Bern
    Weyerhaeuser--New Bern has one power boiler which burns residual 
oil. It is fired at 579 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input rate. The only 
available control identified by NCDAQ is an FGD at a cost of $17,317/
ton SO<INF>2</INF>. Therefore, the NCDAQ concluded that there are no 
cost-effective controls available for this unit at this time within the 
cost threshold established for this reasonable progress assessment.
5. Cogentrix Kenansville
    The affected emissions unit at Cogentrix Kenansville is Gen1, a 215 
MMBtu/hr heat input mixed fuel-fired EGU capable of burning coal, 
natural gas, No. 2 and No. 4 fuel oil, tire-derived fuel, pelletized 
paper fuel, flyash briquette, and wood. Although the company retains 
coal as a permitted fuel on the permit, it is currently burning 
unadulterated wood (pure wood with up to five percent impurities), and 
its new business plan is to continue burning only wood as part of the 
``green power'' movement in North Carolina.
    The 2005 actual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for this unit were 23.25 
tons, whereas the projected 2018 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions were 1,833.8 
tons based on using coal. In the final SIP submittal, the NCDAQ stated 
that it is sending the company a letter indicating that they are 
currently on the list of sources contributing greater than one percent 
to the total sulfate visibility impairment at the Swanquarter 
Wilderness Area based on the estimated emissions from burning coal. The 
SIP submittal indicated that the letter will suggest that the facility 
change its permit to remove coal as a possible fuel source for this 
unit.
6. EPA Assessment
    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have 
wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements 
for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways for a state 
to approach identification of additional reasonable measures. States 
must consider, at a minimum, the four statutory factors in

[[Page 11872]]

determining reasonable progress, but states have flexibility in how to 
take these factors into consideration.
    NCDAQ applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for identifying 
appropriate sources to be considered for additional controls under 
reasonable progress for the implementation period ending in 2018 that 
is addressed by this SIP. Using this methodology, NCDAQ first 
identified those emissions and emissions units most likely to have an 
impact on visibility in the State's and neighboring Class I areas. 
Units with emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> with a relative contribution to 
visibility impairment of at least a one percent contribution at any 
Class I area were then subject to a reasonable progress control 
analysis except for utilities subject to CAIR.
    After reviewing NCDAQ's methodology and analyses and the record 
prepared by NCDAQ, EPA proposes to find North Carolina's conclusion 
that no further controls are necessary at this time acceptable. EPA 
proposes to find that North Carolina adequately evaluated the control 
technologies available at the time of its analysis and applicable to 
this type of facility and consistently applied its criteria for 
reasonable compliance costs. The State also included appropriate 
documentation in its SIP of the technical analysis it used to assess 
the need for and implementation of reasonable progress controls. 
Although the use of a specific threshold for assessing costs means that 
a state may not fully consider available emissions reduction measures 
above its threshold that would result in meaningful visibility 
improvement, EPA believes that the North Carolina SIP still ensures 
reasonable progress. In proposing to approve North Carolina's 
reasonable progress analysis, EPA is placing great weight on the fact 
that there is no indication in the SIP submittal that North Carolina, 
as a result of using a specific cost effectiveness threshold, rejected 
potential reasonable progress measures that would have had a meaningful 
impact on visibility in its Class I areas. EPA notes that given the 
emissions reductions resulting from CAIR and the measures in nearby 
states, the visibility improvements projected for the affected Class I 
areas are in excess of that needed to be on the uniform rate of 
progress.
B. Facilities With Emissions Units Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any 
Class I Area
    NCDAQ identified 16 EGUs at eight facilities which met the State's 
minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation because they were 
modeled to fall within the SO<INF>2</INF> AOI of any Class I area and 
have a one percent or greater contribution to the sulfate visibility 
impairment to at least one Class I area. North Carolina determined that 
no additional controls for the State's EGUs for SO<INF>2</INF> were 
reasonable during the first implementation period. In reaching this 
decision, NCDAQ evaluated the amount of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
reductions from the EGU sector expected from the implementation of 
North Carolina's CSA and CAIR. The EGUs in North Carolina are expected 
to reduce their SO<INF>2</INF> emissions by greater than 80 percent 
between 2002 and 2018.
    Additionally, NCDAQ considered the four reasonable progress factors 
set forth in EPA's RHR as they apply to the State's entire EGU sector 
in sections 7.7 and 7.8 of the North Carolina SIP. In particular, the 
State took into account the factors of cost and time necessary for 
compliance in view of EPA's analysis supporting CAIR.
    Based on this analysis, NCDAQ concluded that the emissions 
reductions required by CAIR constitute reasonable measures for North 
Carolina EGUs during this first assessment period. This conclusion is 
bolstered by the fact that, as discussed in section IV.C.7, visibility 
improvement at the State's Class I areas is projected to exceed the 
uniform rate of progress in this first implementation period. NCDAQ 
intends to re-evaluate EPA's Integrated Planning Model (IPM) 
predictions of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions for CAIR at the time 
of the next periodic progress report to ensure that the reductions are 
in fact taking place where they were predicted. Based on the controls 
required by CSA, and predicted by IPM under CAIR, NCDAQ has concluded 
that, at this time, these existing regulatory programs constitute 
reasonable control measures for these 16 EGUs during the first 
implementation period (between the baseline and 2018). EPA proposes a 
limited approval of North Carolina's methodology and determination that 
no additional controls beyond CAIR and CSA are reasonable for 
SO<INF>2</INF> for affected North Carolina EGUs for the first 
implementation period.
C. Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
1. Non-EGUs Subject to BART
    Three emissions units at Blue Ridge Paper that met the State's 
minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation are 
emissions units that NCDAQ also found to be subject to BART. NCDAQ 
concluded that the application of BART constitutes reasonable progress 
for these three units for this implementation period, and thus, it is 
not requiring any additional controls for reasonable progress at this 
time. As discussed in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the 
BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment of many of the same 
factors that must be addressed in establishing the RPGs, EPA believes 
that it is reasonable to conclude that any control requirements imposed 
in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-related requirements for 
source review in the first implementation period.\14\ Thus, EPA 
proposes to concur with the State's conclusions that BART satisfies 
reasonable progress for the first implementation period for these three 
emissions units at Blue Ridge Paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4.2-4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other Units Exempted from Preparing a Reasonable Progress Control 
Analysis
    NCDAQ did not evaluate the two emissions units at Ecusta Business 
Development Center since they ceased operation prior to the regional 
haze SIP submittal date. Two of the four units at PCS Phosphate in 
Aurora that were identified for assessment for reasonable progress have 
since permanently ceased operation and therefore were not evaluated 
further.
6. BART
    BART is an element of North Carolina's LTS for the first 
implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists of three 
components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) 
an assessment of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART 
and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These components, as 
addressed by NCDAQ and NCDAQ's findings, are discussed as follows.
A. BART-Eligible Sources
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. NCDAQ identified the 
BART-eligible sources in North Carolina by utilizing the three 
eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's 
regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the 
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART 
Guidelines; (2) the emissions units were not in operation prior to 
August 7, 1962, and were in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these 
units have the potential to emit 250 tons or more per year of any 
visibility-impairing pollutant.

[[Page 11873]]

    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and direct PM (including both PM<INF>10</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants and to 
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from 
a source impair visibility in a Class I area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS 
modeling demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia 
from point sources, except for potentially one ammonia source, are not 
significant visibility-impairing pollutants in North Carolina, as 
discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action. Based on the VISTAS 
modeling, NCDAQ has determined that ammonia emissions from the State's 
point sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute significantly 
to any impairment of visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt 
for BART purposes. No ammonia source in North Carolina was identified 
by VISTAS as a possible contributor to visibility impairment.
B. BART-Subject Sources
    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the 
BART Guidelines, North Carolina required each of its BART-eligible 
sources to develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent 
of their contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas in 
surrounding states.
1. Modeling Methodology
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \15\ modeling 
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility 
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and therefore, to 
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is 
subject to BART.'' EPA believes that CALPUFF is the best regulatory 
modeling application currently available for predicting a single 
source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162). North 
Carolina, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF modeling system 
to determine whether individual sources in North Carolina were subject 
to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Note that EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer on the 
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that 
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including North Carolina, 
developed a ``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART 
Analyses.'' Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, 
trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in 
the development and review of the VISTAS protocol.
    VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE 
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could 
consider the old and new IMPROVE equations. North Carolina's 
justification included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a 
rationale on the benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation.
2. Contribution Threshold
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is 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. The BART Guidelines state that ``[a] single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered 
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that 
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across 
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for 
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment 
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that 
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the 
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 
Class I area justifies this approach.
    North Carolina used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for 
determining which sources are subject to BART. NCDAQ concluded that, 
considering the results of the visibility impacts modeling conducted, a 
0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate in this situation and a lower 
threshold was not warranted for the following reasons. The State 
demonstrated that there are a limited number of in and out of state 
sources that impact the Class I areas in the State, and that there are 
a limited number of sources in close proximity to each of the affected 
Class I areas. Additionally, the majority of the visibility impacts 
were well below 0.5 deciview. Also, even though several sources 
impacted each Class I area, the overall impacts were low from the 
sources. EPA is proposing to agree with North Carolina that the overall 
impacts of these sources are not sufficient to warrant a lower 
contribution threshold and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was 
appropriate in this instance.
3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    North Carolina identified 17 facilities with BART-eligible sources. 
All of North Carolina's 17 BART-eligible sources were required by the 
State to submit exemption-modeling demonstrations. North Carolina found 
that two of its BART-eligible sources (Blue Ridge Paper and PCS 
Phosphate) had modeled visibility impacts of more than the State's 0.5 
deciview threshold. Therefore, these two facilities are subject to BART 
and submitted State permit applications including their proposed BART 
determinations. PCS Phosphate subsequently shut down its two sulfuric 
acid units subject to BART and these units were not further evaluated.
    The 15 remaining sources were able to demonstrate that they are not 
subject to BART by modeling less than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact 
at the affected Class I areas. This modeling involved emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF> as applicable to 
individual facilities.
    Six of North Carolina's BART-eligible sources are facilities with 
EGUs that are subject to CAIR. As noted above, the RHR allows states to 
implement an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the 
alternative program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable 
progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART. Under 
regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program, EPA made 
just such a demonstration for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and 
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP 
or which

[[Page 11874]]

remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 
97 need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, 
and maintain BART for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>. 
See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address direct emissions 
of PM, states were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM 
emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. Thus, North 
Carolina's EGUs were allowed to submit BART exemption modeling 
demonstrations for PM emissions only. All of the BART-eligible EGUs 
demonstrated that their PM emissions do not contribute to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area. Table 5 identifies the 17 BART-eligible 
sources located in North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. North Carolina 
relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> were not analyzed.

   Table 5--North Carolina BART--Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART:
    Blue Ridge Paper
Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART:
    EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources \16\:
        Duke Energy--Belews Creek Steam Station
        Duke Energy--Cliffside Steam Station
        Duke Energy--Marshall Steam Station
        Progress Energy--Asheville Plant
        Progress Energy--Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
        Progress Energy--Sutton Plant
    Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt:
        Alcoa, Inc.-Badin Works
        DAK Americas--Cape Fear
        DAK Americas--Cedar Creek
        Elementis Chromium
        International Paper--Riegelwood Mill
        International Paper--Roanoke Rapids
        Invista, S.A.R.L.
        Weyerhaeuser Company--Plymouth
        Weyerhaeuser Company--New Bern
    Shut Down:
        PCS Phosphate
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy 
BART for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> for affected CAIR EGUs was 
fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, 
the BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on 
CAIR. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of 
the North Carolina regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the 
State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the D.C. 
Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not 
taking action in this proposed rulemaking to address the State's 
reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements.
C. BART Determination
    The five BART-eligible units at Blue Ridge Paper modeled visibility 
impacts of more than the 0.5 deciview threshold and are therefore 
subject to BART. Consequently, Blue Ridge Paper submitted to the State 
a permit application that included their proposed BART determination.
    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of 
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed 
existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted 
the best controls currently available, then identified what other 
technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the 
technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. 
The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are 
summarized below. The units subject to the BART requirements at Blue 
Ridge Paper include the two recovery furnaces, their associated smelt 
dissolving tanks, and the black liquor oxidation system (BLOX). NCDAQ 
concluded that BART for all of these emissions sources is the existing 
emissions control systems currently in place.
    The recovery furnaces emit PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF>. 
For the recovery furnaces, potential retrofit control technologies for 
PM emissions were not further evaluated since the units are already 
equipped with the most stringent controls and since the operation of 
these controls is required by the facility's title V operating permit. 
For NO<INF>X</INF>, several potential control alternatives were 
evaluated; however, NCDAQ believes that the installation of 
NO<INF>X</INF> reduction controls for the recovery furnaces is not 
economically feasible. For SO<INF>2</INF>, installation of a wet 
scrubber following the ESP was identified as technically feasible; 
however, it was not considered economically feasible and would result 
in only a marginal visibility improvement at one Class I area (Great 
Smoky Mountains) and degradation in visibility at another (Shining 
Rock). Therefore, the State determined that retrofit controls are not 
warranted as BART for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the recovery 
furnaces.
    The smelt dissolving tanks emit PM, SO<INF>2</INF>, and 
NO<INF>X</INF>. No NO<INF>X</INF> controls are available for this 
source type. For PM and SO<INF>2</INF>, the number of technically 
feasible controls is limited due to the fact that the emissions are 
minimal and of low velocity. Although several options were evaluated, 
they would only minimally reduce the number of days above 0.5 deciview 
at Shining Rock and Great Smoky Mountains, and NCDAQ believes that the 
installation of retrofit controls on the smelt dissolving tanks as BART 
is not economically feasible (in excess of $13,000/ton for less than 44 
tons/year of particulate reduction).
    The BLOX system emits PM, SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>. Blue 
Ridge is complying with MACT Subpart S through alternative requirements 
approved by the EPA under an equivalency by permit

[[Page 11875]]

approach. Under these alternative requirements, Blue Ridge is 
controlling the BLOX system to achieve a greater level of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) reduction by controlling emissions from the BLOX system 
in a new Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) equipped with a wet 
scrubber for SO<INF>2</INF> control. Proper operation of the RTO and 
combustion of natural gas as auxiliary fuel minimize PM and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
    Because the unit is already equipped with the most stringent 
controls as required by the MACT standards, and permit limits are in 
place to ensure these controls are operated properly, the NCDAQ has 
determined that BART for the BLOX is existing controls.
    EPA proposes to agree with North Carolina's analyses and 
conclusions for the BART emissions units located at the Blue Ridge 
Paper facility. EPA has reviewed the North Carolina analyses and 
proposes to conclude that they were conducted in a manner that is 
consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control 
Cost Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo). 
Therefore, the conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's 
guidance to these sources.
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs 
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. 
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing federal and state 
regulations for the period 2004-2018 and additional control measures 
which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first 
implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the 
other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the North 
Carolina Class I areas had not yet made final control determinations 
for BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not 
included in the modeling submitted by North Carolina. Any controls 
resulting from those determinations will provide additional emissions 
reductions and resulting visibility improvement, which give further 
assurances that North Carolina will achieve its RPGs. This modeling 
demonstrates that the 2018 base control scenario provides for an 
improvement in visibility better than the uniform rate of progress for 
both of the North Carolina Class I areas for the most impaired days 
over the period of the implementation plan and ensures no degradation 
in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
    On February 16, 2010, NCDAQ sent a letter to EPA Region 4 
clarifying the reason for the differences in the RPGs for Great Smoky 
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer presented in the North Carolina and 
Tennessee regional haze SIP submittals. For the 20 percent worst days, 
the April 4, 2008, Tennessee submittal used 23.50 deciviews while the 
North Carolina submittal states the RPG as 23.7 (or 23.66) deciviews. 
(Similarly, for the 20 percent best days, the RPG differences between 
the two states' submittals were 12.2 (or 12.15) deciviews in the North 
Carolina submittal vs 12.11 deciviews in the Tennessee submittal.) 
NCDAQ explained that the differences are due to different modeling runs 
used by each state. At the time of SIP development, only the earlier 
version of the VISTAS modeling run was available to NCDAQ. NCDAQ 
acknowledges that the RPGs in the Tennessee regional haze SIP represent 
the most current information and commits to revise the RPGs for Great 
Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer in the periodic progress report SIP. 
In accordance with this letter of clarification, Table 6 below reflects 
the updated RPGs of 12.11 (approximated to 12.1) and 23.50 for both the 
best and worst days, respectively, for these two Class I areas.
    As shown in Table 6 below, North Carolina's RPGs for the 20 percent 
worst days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the 
uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I areas. Also, the RPGs 
for the 20 percent best days provide greater visibility improvement by 
2018 than current best day conditions. The regional haze provisions 
specify that a state may not adopt a RPG that represents less 
visibility improvement than is expected to result from other CAA 
requirements during the implementation period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). 
Therefore, the CAIR states with Class I areas, like North Carolina, 
took into account emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR in 
determining their 2018 RPGs.\17\ The modeling supporting the analysis 
of these RPGs is consistent with EPA guidance at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly 
relied on CAIR emissions reductions within the state to address some 
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other 
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used 
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states 
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                                            Table 6--North Carolina 2018 RPGs
                                                                     [In deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   2018 RPG--  20%  Uniform rate  of                     2018 RPG--  20%
                                                                    Baseline         worst days        progress at        Baseline          best days
                         Class I area                            visibility--20%    (improvement    2018--20%  worst    visibility--      (improvement
                                                                   worst days      from baseline)         days          20% best days    from baseline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Smoky Mountains National Park...........................              30.3        23.5 (6.8)             25.79              13.6        12.1 (1.5)
Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness Area........................              30.3        23.5 (6.8)             25.79              13.6        12.1 (1.5)
Linville Gorge Wilderness Area................................              28.8        22.0 (6.8)             24.67              11.1         9.6 (1.5)
Shining Rock Wilderness Area..................................              28.5        22.1 (6.4)             24.50               7.7         6.9 (0.8)
Swanquarter Wilderness Area...................................              24.7        20.4 (4.3)             21.66              12.0        11.0 (1.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I areas in North Carolina are based on 
modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using the 
best available information at the time the analysis was done. These 
projections can be expected to change as additional information 
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources 
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in 
response to changed economic circumstances, and facilities may change 
their emissions characteristics as they install control equipment to 
comply with new rules. It would be both impractical and resource-
intensive to require a state to continually adjust its RPGs every time 
an event affecting these future projections changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions 
and

[[Page 11876]]

addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. EPA 
made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard which 
must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR 35733. At the same 
time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if 
necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 
52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-year progress review 
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this 
progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emissions management 
strategies in meeting the RPGs and to provide an assessment of whether 
current implementation strategies are sufficient for the state or 
affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its 
assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR 
requires the state to take appropriate action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). 
The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the 
state's conclusion that the current strategies are insufficient to meet 
the RPGs. North Carolina specifically committed to follow this process 
in its submittal. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve North Carolina's 
RPGs for Great Smoky Mountains, Joyce Kilmer, Linville Gorge, Shining 
Rock, and Swanquarter.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as 
explained in sections III.F and III.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI 
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral 
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR 
51.302. An integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view 
perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific 
landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory 
Class I Federal area.'' Visibility in any mandatory Class I area 
includes any integral vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not 
identify any integral vistas in North Carolina. In addition, the Class 
I areas in North Carolina are neither experiencing RAVI nor are any of 
its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the December 17, 
2007, North Carolina regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly 
address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional 
haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. North Carolina has, 
however, previously made a commitment to address RAVI should the FLMs 
certify visibility impairment from an individual source.\18\ EPA finds 
that this regional haze submittal appropriately supplements and 
augments North Carolina's RAVI visibility provisions to address 
regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as 
summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ North Carolina submitted its visibility SIP revisions 
addressing RAVI on April 15, 1985, which EPA approved on January 21, 
1986 (51 FR 2695).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its December 17, 2007, submittal, NCDAQ updated its visibility 
monitoring program and developed a LTS to address regional haze. Also 
in this submittal, NCDAQ affirmed its commitment to complete items 
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, NCDAQ made a 
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan 
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years 
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements 
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, NCDAQ committed to 
submitting a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each 
mandatory Class I area located within North Carolina and for each 
mandatory Class I area located outside North Carolina that may be 
affected by emissions from within North Carolina. The progress report 
is required to be in the form of a SIP revision and is due every five 
years following the initial submittal of the regional haze SIP. See 40 
CFR 51.308(g). Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI 
and regional haze, North Carolina will rely on the IMPROVE network for 
compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be 
needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the 
North Carolina new source review (NSR) rules, previously approved in 
the State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and 
coordination with the FLMs on new sources and major modifications to 
existing sources subject to the NSR regulations which may have an 
adverse impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional 
haze) in any Class I area.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in North Carolina 
is the IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2 of this notice, 
the following Class I areas in North Carolina have IMPROVE monitoring 
sites: Linville Gorge, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter. There is also one 
IMPROVE site in Tennessee that serves as the monitoring site for both 
Great Smoky Mountains and Joyce Kilmer, both of which lie partly in 
Tennessee and partly in North Carolina.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for 
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the December 17, 2007, 
regional haze submittal. Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring 
network will be used nearly continuously for preparing the five-year 
progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on 
analysis of the preceding five years of data. The Visibility 
Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by 
VISTAS and the other RPOs to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data 
and data analysis tools. North Carolina is encouraging VISTAS and the 
other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a similar data management system to 
facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, there is long-term limited 
monitoring by FLMs which provides additional insight into progress 
toward regional haze goals. Such measurements include:
    [ssquf] Web cameras operated by the National Park Service at Look 
Rock, Tennessee, and Purchase Knob, North Carolina, in Great Smoky 
Mountains, and by the U.S. Forest Service at Frying Pan Mountain in 
Shining Rock.
    [ssquf] An integrating nephelometer for continuously measuring 
light scattering, operated by the National Park Service at Look Rock, 
Tennessee.
    <bullet> A Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance for 
continuously measuring PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass concentration, operated by 
the National Park Service at Look Rock, Tennessee.
    Additional haze-related measurements were made in North Carolina in 
2002-2005 to better understand source contributions to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
mass and visibility. These studies included continuous monitoring of 
sulfate, nitrate, and carbon to better understand daily trends in 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, detailed analyses of carbon collected on filters to 
identify source contributions to carbon, and additional analyses of 
sodium and ammonium on IMPROVE filter samples. While funding no longer 
exists to continue these special studies, VISTAS transferred the 
monitoring equipment to NCDAQ.
    In the regional haze submittal, the State notes that NCDAQ will 
continue to operate the following monitors to further the understanding 
of both PM<INF>2.5</INF> as well as visibility formation and

[[Page 11877]]

trends in North Carolina for as long as funds allow:
    <bullet> Continuous nitrate monitor and continuous sulfate monitor 
at the Millbrook monitoring site in Raleigh, North Carolina;
    <bullet> Continuous nitrate monitor at the Rockwell monitoring site 
in Rowan County, North Carolina, with a continuous sulfate monitor 
planned for this site as of January 2008;
    <bullet> 5400 R&P monitor for organic, total, and elemental carbon 
at the Millbrook site; and
    <bullet> Aethalometer (whose final location was yet to be 
determined at time of SIP development).
    In addition, NCDAQ and the local air agencies in the State operate 
a comprehensive PM<INF>2.5</INF> network of the filter-based federal 
reference method monitors, continuous mass monitors, filter-based 
speciated monitors, and the continuous speciated monitors described 
above.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the 
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose 
of these meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states 
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide 
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses 
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    NCDAQ evaluated the impact of North Carolina sources on Class I 
areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is 
located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside and 
outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. 
Because many of these states had not yet defined their criteria for 
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, North Carolina 
applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the State that have 
emissions units with impacts large enough to potentially warrant 
further evaluation and analysis. The State identified one emissions 
unit in North Carolina with a contribution of one percent or more to 
the visibility impairment at the following Class I area in a 
neighboring state: James River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia. North 
Carolina also identified two emissions units that impact the shared 
Class I areas located in both North Carolina and Tennessee (Great Smoky 
Mountains and Joyce Kilmer). Based on an evaluation of the four 
reasonable progress statutory factors, North Carolina determined that 
there are no additional control measures for these North Carolina 
emissions units that would be reasonable to implement to mitigate 
visibility impacts in the Class I areas in these neighboring states. 
NCDAQ consulted with these states regarding its reasonable progress 
control evaluations showing no cost-effective controls available for 
those emissions units in North Carolina contributing at least one 
percent to visibility impairment at Class I areas in the states. 
Additionally, NCDAQ sent letters to other states in the VISTAS region, 
specifically Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, documenting its 
analysis using the State's AOI methodology that no SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions units in North Carolina contribute at least one percent to 
the visibility impairment at the Class I areas in those states. No 
adverse comments were received from the other VISTAS states. The 
documentation for these formal consultations is provided in Appendix J 
of North Carolina's SIP.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I 
areas in North Carolina, NCDAQ sent letters to Alabama, Delaware, 
Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia pertaining to 
emissions units within these states that the State believes contributed 
one percent or higher to visibility impairment in the North Carolina 
Class I areas. At that time, these neighboring states were still in the 
process of evaluating BART and reasonable progress for their sources. 
Any controls resulting from those determinations will provide 
additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, 
which give further assurances that North Carolina will achieve its 
RPGs. Therefore, to be conservative, North Carolina opted not to rely 
on any additional emissions reductions from sources located outside the 
State's boundaries beyond those already identified in the State's 
regional haze SIP submittal and as discussed in section IV.C.1 of this 
action.
    North Carolina also received letters from the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO states of Maine, New Jersey, 
and New Hampshire in early 2007 stating that based on MANE-VU's 
analysis of 2002 emissions data, North Carolina contributed to 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in those states. These letters 
invited North Carolina to participate in future consultation meetings. 
North Carolina sent response letters to these states providing 
information on the State's CSA and copies of the compliance plans for 
two utilities in the State showing which emissions units are expected 
to install controls to meet CSA NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions caps. North Carolina emphasized in its response letters that 
it is important to also evaluate visibility impairment contributions 
for the year 2018 to reflect implementation of programs such as CAIR 
and CSA. NCDAQ noted that based upon VISTAS' analyses using 2018 
emissions projections, no emissions units in North Carolina meet 
NCDAQ's minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation 
for the Class I areas in these states. Thus, NCDAQ stated that it does 
not believe any of its emissions units provide significant 
contributions from sulfate-derived visibility impacts to these MANE-VU 
states' Class I areas, and expressed the State's willingness to 
participate in future consultations through VISTAS.
    In their consultation discussions, the MANE-VU states identified 
twelve EGUs in North Carolina that they would like to see controlled to 
90 percent efficiency. They also requested a control strategy to 
provide a 28 percent reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from sources 
other than EGUs that would be equivalent to their low sulfur fuel oil 
strategy. North Carolina has controlled or is expecting to control 
under the North Carolina CSA eleven of the twelve identified EGUs. 
Additionally, scrubbers are expected on three EGUs that were not 
identified by MANE-VU. NCDAQ believes that these reductions satisfy 
MANE-VU's request.
    EPA proposes to find that North Carolina has adequately addressed 
the consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented 
its consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, North Carolina and the nine other member 
states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of 
the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support 
the regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional 
haze plan for North Carolina was out for FLM and EPA discussions from 
August to September 2007. North Carolina subsequently modified the plan 
to address comments received on this initial version and reissued it 
for public comment from October to November 2007.
    Regarding North Carolina's initial August 2, 2007, draft regional 
haze SIP and the proposed regional haze SIP

[[Page 11878]]

released for public comment on October 12, 2007, the FLMs requested 
that the State provide more information in the SIP revision regarding 
two facilities, Blue Ridge Paper and PCS Phosphate-Aurora. Based on the 
Blue Ridge Paper's visibility impacts at multiple Class I areas, the 
FLMs asked the State to describe a plan to consult with the company on 
potential control actions prior to 2018 that may warrant a higher cost 
of control for reasonable progress. For PCS Phosphate, the FLMs 
expressed concern that the facility's BART determination for this 
facility did not fully evaluate the effectiveness and associated cost 
of controls. Other comments asked for clarification of items and for 
more discussion with specific source information for the AOI reasonable 
progress evaluations in the main body of the SIP, in addition to the 
appendices. North Carolina provided responses to the FLMs regarding 
their comments on the draft SIP. The State included more of the 
detailed reasonable progress control evaluation information in the main 
body of the SIP. Regarding Blue Ridge Paper, the State described that 
it acknowledged in the SIP that the company has visibility impacts on 
multiple Class I areas and has notified the company that although 
additional controls are not being required this implementation period, 
future periods may require controls. NCDAQ stated in the SIP that it is 
committed to work with the company over the next implementation period 
and encourage the company to modernize some of its processes with more 
efficient, less polluting equipment. For the two BART-eligible units at 
PCS Phosphate, the State noted that the facility is planning to shut 
down these units, and thus, it would not be prudent to install controls 
on them. For the two units subject to a reasonable progress control 
analysis, NCDAQ included additional language in the SIP stating that it 
has notified the company that although additional controls are not 
being required this period, future implementation periods may require 
controls to be installed.
    To address the requirement for continuing consultation procedures 
with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), NCDAQ made a commitment in the 
SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues 
throughout implementation of its plan, including annual discussions of 
the implementation process and the most recent data from IMPROVE 
monitoring and VIEWS. NCDAQ also affirms in the SIP that FLM 
consultation is required for those sources subject to the State's NSR 
regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As also summarized in section IV.D of this notice, consistent with 
40 CFR 51.308(g), NCDAQ affirmed its commitment to submitting a 
progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years 
following this initial submittal of the North Carolina regional haze 
SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for 
each mandatory Class I area located within North Carolina and for each 
mandatory Class I area located outside North Carolina that may be 
affected by emissions from within North Carolina. North Carolina also 
offered recommendations for several technical improvements that, as 
funding allows, can support the State's next LTS. These recommendations 
are discussed in detail in the North Carolina submittal in Appendix K.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that North 
Carolina's SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if after 
appropriate consultation North Carolina agrees, today's action may be 
revisited, or additional information and/or changes will be addressed 
in the five-year progress report SIP revision.

V. What Action is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the North 
Carolina SIP submitted by the State of North Carolina on December 17, 
2007, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as 
set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308, as described previously in this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines 
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act 
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. This federal action proposes to approve pre-existing 
requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new

[[Page 11879]]

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, 
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to 
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. 
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus 
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs 
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4711 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>