[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24794-24827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9839]



[[Page 24793]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 80

April 25, 2012

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 52





Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of 
New York; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal 
Implementation Plan; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 24794]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0296, FRL-9663-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of New York; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and Federal 
Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
the revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional 
haze submitted by the State of New York on March 15, 2010, and 
supplemented on August 2, 2010. New York's revised SIP reduces regional 
haze during the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. This 
revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's 
rules that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any 
existing, man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 
caused by emissions of air pollutants located over a wide geographic 
area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). EPA is 
proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the 
deficiencies identified in our proposed partial disapproval of New 
York's regional haze SIP. In lieu of this proposed FIP, or a portion 
thereof, we are proposing approval of a SIP revision if the State 
submits such a revision in a timely way, and the revision matches the 
terms of our proposed FIP. EPA is also proposing approval of New York's 
Best Available Retrofit Technology regulation, Part 249.

DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2012.
    Public Hearing: A public hearing, if requested, will be held at 
USEPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, on May 16, 
2012, beginning at 9 a.m. If you wish to request a hearing and present 
testimony or attend the hearing, you should notify, on or before May 4, 
2012, Ms. Katherine Doctor, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290 
Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866; telephone number: (212) 637-
4249; fax number (212) 637-3901; email address 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f4b404c5b405d01444e5b474a5d46414a6f4a5f4e01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0a010d1a011c40050f1a060b1c07000b2e0b1e0f40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes each. The hearing will 
be strictly limited to the subject matter of the proposal, the scope of 
which is discussed below. EPA will not respond to comments during the 
public hearing. EPA will not be providing equipment for commenters to 
show overhead slides or make computerized slide presentations. Any 
member of the public may file a written statement by the close of the 
comment period. Written statements (duplicate copies preferred) should 
be submitted to Docket ID No. EPA-R2-OAR-2012-0296, at the address 
listed for submitting comments. A verbatim transcript of the hearing 
and written statements will be made available for copying during normal 
working hours at the address listed for inspection for documents. If no 
requests for a public hearing are received by close of business on May 
4, 2012, a hearing will not be held; please contact Ms. Doctor to find 
out if the hearing will actually be held or will be cancelled for lack 
of any request to speak.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2012-0296, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83f4e6f1ede6f1adf1e2faeeecede7c3e6f3e2ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="89feecfbe7ecfba7fbe8f0e4e6e7edc9ecf9e8a7eee6ff">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> Fax: 212-637-3901.
    <bullet> Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. 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.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2012-
0296. 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 information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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 or 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/air/docket.html.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all 
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, State Implementation 
Planning Section, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New 
York, New York 10007-1866. The telephone number is (212) 637-4049. Mr. 
Kelly can also be reached via electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe959b929287d09c919cbe9b8e9fd0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="58333d343421763a373a183d2839763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
    A. Proposed Actions
    B. SIP and FIP Background
    C. Implication of Clean Air Interstate Rule and Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

[[Page 24795]]

    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of New York's Regional Haze submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    4. Reasonable Progress Goals
    a. Application of Modeling To Demonstrate Reasonable Progress
    b. How New York's Plan Addresses Its Share of Reductions Toward 
Meeting the Reasonable Progress Goal
    5. Section 19-0325 of the Environmental Conservation Law--Low 
Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
    6. BART
    a. BART-Eligible Sources in New York
    b. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified as BART by New York
    c. Enforceability of BART
    d. New York's Part 249--Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART)
    C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, wherever ``Agency,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. What action is EPA proposing?

A. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the 
revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing 
regional haze under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) sections 301(a) 
and 110(k)(3), submitted on March 15, 2010, and supplemented on August 
2, 2010.
    1. EPA proposes to disapprove the following Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) determinations:
    <bullet> New York's Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) BART 
determinations and emissions limits for Units 1 and 2 of Dynegy's 
Roseton Generating Station.
    <bullet> New York's SO<INF>2</INF> BART determinations and 
emissions limits for Unit 4 of Dynegy's Danskammer Generating Station.
    <bullet> New York's SO<INF>2,</INF> Nitrogen Oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) 
and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions limits for Boiler 42 of Kodak's 
Eastman Business Park.
    2. EPA proposes to disapprove the following facility BART 
determinations and emission limits because while New York has proposed 
permit modifications, New York has not issued final permit 
modifications or submitted them to EPA as a SIP revision:
    <bullet> New York's SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM BART 
determinations and emissions limits at the following facilities, with 
owners of sources [in brackets]:
    [cir] Bowline Point Generating Station [GenOn]
    [cir] Danskammer Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Owens Corning Delmar Plant
    [cir] Oswego Harbor Power [NRG]
    [cir] Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez]
    [cir] Kodak Park Division
    3. EPA proposes to disapprove the following facility BART 
determinations and emission limits because New York has not submitted 
final permit modifications to EPA as a SIP revision. EPA has reviewed 
the BART determinations for these facilities and New York has issued 
final permit modifications. EPA would propose to approve these final 
permit modifications, but New York has not submitted them to EPA as SIP 
revisions. Therefore EPA proposes to disapprove the following and we 
propose a FIP to address this deficiency:
    <bullet> New York's SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM BART 
determinations and emissions limits for the following facilities, with 
owners of sources [in brackets]:
    [cir] EF Barrett Power Station [National Grid (NG)]
    [cir] Northport Power Station [NG]
    [cir] 59th Street Station [Con Ed]
    [cir] Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG]
    [cir] Ravenswood Generating Station [Trans Canada (TC)]
    [cir] Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con Edison]
    [cir] Roseton Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant
    [cir] Lafarge Building Materials
    [cir] International Paper Ticonderoga Mill
    [cir] Lehigh Northeast Cement
    [cir] ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant)
    [cir] Samuel A Carlson Generating Station [Jamestown Board of 
Public Utilities (BPU)]
    4. EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 
the deficiencies identified above in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 in our 
proposed partial disapproval of New York's Regional Haze SIP. In lieu 
of this proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we are proposing approval 
of a SIP revision if the State submits such a revision in a timely way, 
and the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP, or relevant 
portion thereof. See also paragraph 6 below.
    5. EPA proposes to approve the remaining aspects of New York's 
Regional Haze SIP revision as follows:
    <bullet> New York's determination under the reasonable progress 
requirements found at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) that all measures or their 
equivalents found to be reasonable by the State, and agreed to by the 
MANE-VU \1\ states, have been enacted and implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MANE-VU is the Mid-Atlantic/North East Visibility Union, 
comprising Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
the District of Columbia, the Penobscot Nation, and the St. Regis 
Mohawk Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> New York's Long Term Strategy, as required by the Act, 
will be approvable, only if New York submits all of the final permit 
modifications in a timely manner, and with the level of control in 
EPA's proposed FIP [note that EPA's FIP for these permits, if enacted, 
would also result in an approvable Long Term Strategy, under the FIP.]
    <bullet> New York's SIP revision consisting of New York's Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) regulation, Part 249.
    6. EPA proposes in the alternative to approve the following 
facility BART determinations and emissions limits should New York 
submit final permit modifications to EPA as SIP revisions, and the 
revisions match the terms of our proposed FIP:
    [cir] Bowline Point Generating Station [GenOn]
    [cir] Danskammer Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Owens Corning Delmar Plant
    [cir] Osweg
    [cir] Harbor Power [NRG]
    [cir] Syracuse Energy Corporation [GDF Suez]
    [cir] Kodak Park Division
    [cir] EF Barrett Power Station [National Grid (NG)]
    [cir] Northport Power Station [NG]
    [cir] 59th Street Station [Con Ed]
    [cir] Arthur Kill Generating Station [NRG]
    [cir] Ravenswood Generating Station [TC]
    [cir] Ravenswood Steam Plant [Con Edison]
    [cir] Roseton Generating Station [Dynegy]
    [cir] Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant
    [cir] Lafarge Building Materials
    [cir] International Paper Ticonderoga Mill
    [cir] Lehigh Northeast Cement

[[Page 24796]]

    [cir] ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant)
    [cir] Samuel A Carlson Generating Station [Jamestown Board of 
Public Utilities (BPU)]

B. SIP and FIP Background

    The CAA requires each state to develop plans to meet various air 
quality requirements, including protection of visibility. (CAA sections 
110(a), 169A, and 169B). The plans developed by a state are referred to 
as SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and SIP revisions to us for 
approval. Once approved, a SIP is federally enforceable, that is 
enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA. If a state fails to make 
a required SIP submittal or if we find that a state's required 
submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP 
to fill this regulatory gap. (CAA section 110(c)(1)). As discussed 
elsewhere in this action, we are proposing to disapprove aspects of New 
York's Regional Haze SIP. We are proposing FIPs to address the 
deficiencies in New York's regional haze submittal, in the event New 
York fails to submit the required elements for this SIP revision.

C. Implication of Clean Air Interstate Rule and Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule

    Consistent with EPA guidance and regulations, (see 70 FR 39104, 
39106 (July 6, 2005)), many states relied on EPA's Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR) to satisfy key elements of Regional Haze SIPs. The DC 
Circuit, however, found CAIR to be inconsistent with the requirements 
of the Act and remanded the rule to the Agency. North Carolina v. EPA, 
531 F.3d 896, 929-30 (D.C. Cir. 2008); modified on rehearing, North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to 
the remand of the CAIR rule, on July 6, 2011 EPA finalized the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR); a rule intended to reduce the 
interstate transport of fine particulate matter and ozone, 76 FR 48208 
(Aug. 8, 2011).
    Although New York was subject to CAIR, its Regional Haze SIP did 
not rely on CAIR to meet the requirements for BART or for attaining the 
in-state emissions reductions necessary to ensure reasonable progress. 
Instead, New York evaluated controls for its potential BART sources. 
New York made BART determinations for its BART-eligible sources, 
including Electric Generating Units (EGUs) that might have been 
controlled under CAIR. Similarly, its long-term strategy for attaining 
the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) at nearby Class I areas includes 
controls on EGUs in New York. Therefore, the remand of CAIR has no 
negative effect on the amount of emission reductions New York will 
achieve from its Regional Haze SIP revision. This action and the 
accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD) explain the basis for 
EPA's proposed actions on New York's Regional Haze SIP revision 
proposal.
    New York's SIP obtains the emission reductions needed with respect 
to the Regional Haze SIP requirements, including the recommendation of 
the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning 
organization.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On June 20, 2007, MANE-VU adopted two documents which 
provide the technical basis for consultation among the interested 
parties and define the basic strategies for controlling pollutants 
that cause visibility impairment at Class I areas in the eastern 
United States. The documents, entitled ``Statement of the Mid-
Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Concerning a Course of 
Action within MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress,'' and 
``Statement of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) 
Concerning a Request for a Course of Action by States outside of 
MANE-VU toward Assuring Reasonable Progress'' are together known as 
the MANE-VU ``Ask.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by many 
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area 
and emit fine particles and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic 
compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form 
fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), which also impairs 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. 
Visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the 
time at most national parks and wilderness areas, many of which are 
also established under the Act as Federal Class I areas. (CAA section 
162(a)).
    In the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress initiated a program for 
protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness 
areas. Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act establishes as a national goal the 
``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' In 1990 Congress added 
section 169B to the Act to address regional haze issues. On July 1, 
1999 EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35714). The 
requirement to submit a Regional Haze SIP applies to New York and all 
50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 
51.308(b) of the RHR required states to submit the first implementation 
plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than 
December 17, 2007.
    On January 15, 2009, EPA issued a finding that New York failed to 
submit the Regional Haze SIP. 74 FR 2392 (Jan. 15, 2009). New York 
subsequently submitted its Regional Haze SIP on March 15, 2010. EPA's 
January 15, 2009 finding established a two-year deadline of January 15, 
2011 for EPA to either approve New York's Regional Haze SIP, or adopt a 
FIP. This proposed action is intended to address the January 15, 2009 
finding.
    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. New York, as noted above, participates in the MANE-VU 
RPO.

III. What are the requirements for Regional Haze SIPs?

    The following is a basic explanation of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 
for a complete listing of the regulations under which this SIP revision 
was evaluated.

A. The Act and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional Haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the Act 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 (dv) as the principal metric for 
measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes 
in haziness in terms of common

[[Page 24797]]

increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from 
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is determined by 
measuring the visual range, which is the greatest distance, in 
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the 
sky. The dv is calculated from visibility measurements. Each change of 
1.0 dv is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. For this reason, EPA believes it is a useful measure for 
tracking progress in improving visibility. Most people can detect a 
change in visibility at one dv.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dv 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 manmade air pollution 
by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The 
national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., manmade sources 
of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part 
of the process for determining reasonable progress, the RHR requires 
states to 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 planning period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in dv) 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, the RHR requires states to develop an estimate of 
natural visibility conditions for the purposes 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter 
referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the initial regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, baseline visibility conditions were used as the starting points 
for assessing current visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of impairment for the 20 percent least 
impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days at the time the 
regional haze program was established. Using monitoring data for 2000 
through 2004, the RHR required states to calculate the average degree 
of visibility impairment for each Class I area in the state, 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 submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states 
that establish RPGs for Class I areas for each (approximately) 10-year 
planning period is the vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards 
achieving the natural visibility goal. 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 the Act and 
in EPA's RHR: (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. (See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). 
States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors 
into consideration, as noted in our Reasonable Progress guidance.\5\ In 
setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed 
to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the 
``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') and the emission 
reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-
year period of the SIP. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more 
Class I areas (``Class I State'') must also consult with potentially 
``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission 
sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I 
State's areas. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the Act 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, the Act 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 stationary sources \6\ built between 
1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available 
Retrofit Control Technology (BART)'' as determined by the state. (CAA 
169A(b)(2)(A)). States are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-
specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an 
emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the 
alternative provides equal or greater reasonable progress towards 
improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART are 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

[[Page 24798]]

determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART 
requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each 
applicable source. The BART Guidelines require states to use the 
approach set forth in the BART Guidelines in making a BART 
applicability determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating 
plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. The 
BART Guidelines encourage, but do not require states to follow the BART 
Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.
    The BART Guidelines recommend that states address all visibility 
impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination 
process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and 
particulate matter (PM). The BART Guidelines direct states to use their 
best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 
or ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in 
Class I areas.
    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. (70 FR 39170, (July 6, 
2005)).
    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, as required in the Act (section 169A(g)(4)) and in the RHR 
(40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv)). In addition to what is required by the RHR, 
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all 
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for the BART controls on the source. States have the 
flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to 
meet the requirements of BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the Act 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 Long-Term Strategy (LTS) in their SIPs. The LTS 
is the compilation of all control measures a state will use to meet any 
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. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all 
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the seven factors listed below is taken into account in 
developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably 
Attributable Visibility Impairment (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; (7) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. (40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)).

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

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for states with Class I areas 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 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 reasonably attributable 
and regional haze visibility impairment, and the state must submit the 
first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP revision. 
Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic reviews of a 
state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and 
must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, in accordance with 51.308.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    If a state has a Class I Federal Area in the state, the 
requirements in Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR must be met. These 
requirements include a monitoring strategy for measuring, 
characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment 
that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within 
the state and this 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 Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) network. The 
monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it 
must be reviewed every five years. Note that Section 51.308(d)(4) 
contains a list of additional items the implementation plan must 
address.

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

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. (40 CFR 51.308(i)). States must provide FLMs an 
opportunity for consultation, in person

[[Page 24799]]

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 New York's regional haze submittal?

    On March 15, 2010, New York State submitted a revision to the New 
York SIP to address regional haze in Class I areas in nearby states as 
required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    New York does not contain any Class I areas, but it impacts several 
in nearby states based on MANE-VU's contribution analyses (as discussed 
in the TSD), including the Lye Brook Wilderness Area, VT, Brigantine 
Wildlife Refuge, NJ, Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Area and 
Great Gulf Wilderness Area, NH, Roosevelt-Campobello International 
Park, Acadia National Park, Moosehorn Wildlife Refuge, ME, and the 
Shenandoah National Park in VA. For these locations, the FLMs have 
identified visual impairment as an important value that must be 
addressed in regional haze plans. New York is responsible for 
developing a Regional Haze SIP that addresses visibility in these Class 
I areas, articulates New York's long-term emission strategy, describes 
the state's role in the consultation processes, and describes how its 
SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations. 
However, since New York has no Class I areas within its borders, New 
York is not required to calculate baseline and natural visibility 
conditions, establish RPGs, meet monitoring or RAVI requirements as 
described by EPA's RHR for states that have Class I areas.

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies (LTS)

    As described above, the Long Term Strategy (LTS) is a compilation 
of state-specific control measures relied on by the state to obtain its 
share of emission reductions to support the RPGs for the Class I areas 
impacted by New York. These impacted states develop the LTS for the 
first implementation period, which addresses the emissions reductions 
from Federal, state, and local controls that take effect in the 
baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. New York participated in 
the MANE-VU RPO regional strategy development process. As a 
participant, New York supported a regional approach towards deciding 
which control measures to pursue for regional haze, which was based on 
technical analyses documented in the following reports: (a) 
Contributions to Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United 
States; \7\ (b) Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in 
MANE-VU Class I Areas; \8\ (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible 
Sources: Survey of Options for Conducting BART Determinations; \9\ and 
(d) Assessment of Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources: 
Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, 
and Pulp Facilities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/contributions-to-regional-haze-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic--united-states/
    \8\ MANE-VU Report at http://www.otcair.org/manevu/Document.asp?fview=Reports.
    \9\ NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-final-memo-06-28-07.pdf/.
    \10\ NESCAUM Report at http://www.nescaum.org/documents/bart-control-assessment.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LTS was developed by New York, in coordination with MANE-VU, 
identifying the emissions units within New York that likely have the 
largest impacts currently on visibility at Class I areas, estimating 
emissions reductions for 2018, based on all controls required under 
Federal and state regulations for the 2002-2018 period (including 
BART), and comparing projected visibility improvement with the uniform 
rate of progress for the various Class I areas.
    New York's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of 
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with 
New York and includes enforceable emissions limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals established for the Class I areas.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management 
Association for MANE-VU with assistance from New York. The 2018 
emissions inventory projected 2002 emissions to 2018, including 
emissions growth due to projected increases in economic activity as 
well as applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, 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). Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emissions inventories for New York. The 2018 estimated 
emissions include emission growth as well as emission reductions due to 
ongoing emission control strategies to meet RPGs and BART.
    These emissions were used in the modeling that demonstrated that 
the Class I areas affected by emissions from New York and other states 
would meet the Reasonable Progress Goal set for 2018. New York adopted 
the emission reductions that are forecast to improve visibility to meet 
the goals for 2018, thus New York is projected to achieve its share of 
the emission reduction goal for the first implementation period, as 
long as its final permit modifications for BART sources are submitted 
to EPA in a timely fashion, and meet the emission limits described in 
EPA's FIP for these sources. If EPA's FIP is implemented, then the LTS 
would be approvable, since the EPA will have completed the 
implementation of BART for New York State's BART-eligible sources.

                           Table 1--MANE-VU Modeling Inventory Summary: 2002 Base Inventory for New York State--Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                          Primary           Primary
               Sector                      CO              NOX             VOC          NH[ihel3]       SO[ihel2]    PM[ihel1][ihel0]  PM[ihel2].[ihel5]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area...............................         356,287          98,804         502,797          67,198         113,978          356,348             85,841

[[Page 24800]]

 
Point..............................          66,157         118,765          15,033           1,709         286,393            9,834              7,014
Nonroad............................       1,205,509         119,808         158,121              79          13,288            9,605              9,000
Onroad.............................       2,942,730         313,888         179,731          14,439          10,229            7,599              5,402
Biogenic...........................          63,436           8,313         492,483  ..............  ..............  ................  .................
������������������������������������
    Totals.........................       4,634,119         659,578       1,348,165          83,425         423,888          383,386            107,257
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table 2--MANE-VU Modeling Inventory Summary: 2018 Projection Inventory for New York State--Tons per Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sector                         CO              NOX             VOC          NH[ihel3]       SO[ihel2]     Primary PM10    Primary PM2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area....................................         307,659         108,444         457,421          96,078          89,591         392,027          86,422
Point...................................         101,118          55,681          13,091           2,767         118,936          17,062          13,460
Nonroad.................................       1,474,727          72,400         104,562             103           1,686           5,830           5,349
Onroad..................................       1,694,820          78,365          68,104          19,167           1,794           2,775           2,542
Biogenic................................          63,436           8,313         492,483  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
�����������������������������������������
    Totals..............................       3,641,760         323,203       1.135,662         118,115         263,824         417,694         107,773
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed further below, MANE-VU demonstrated that anthropogenic 
emissions of sulfates are the major contributor to PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic regions. It was also determined that the total ammonia 
emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small. In addition, since 
VOC emissions are aggressively controlled through the New York ozone 
SIP, the pollutants New York considered under BART are NO<INF>X</INF>, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and SO<INF>2</INF>.
    In developing the 2018 reasonable progress goal, and the 2018 
projection inventory, Class I area states relied primarily upon the 
information and analyses developed by MANE-VU to meet the requirements 
of EPA's regional haze rules. Based on information from the 
contribution assessment and additional emission inventory analyses, 
MANE-VU identified the following source categories for further 
examination for reasonable measures:
    <bullet> Coal and oil-fired EGUs
    <bullet> Point and area source industrial, commercial and 
institutional (ICI) boilers
    <bullet> Cement and Lime Kilns
    <bullet> Heating oil, and
    <bullet> Residential wood combustion
    MANE-VU, for its member states and tribes, analyzed these potential 
source categories based on the four factors listed in section 
169A(g)(1) of the Act and in Section III.C of this action. New York and 
the MANE-VU states agreed with the analysis that determined that 
reasonable controls existed for coal and oil-fired EGUs, industrial, 
commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers, cement and lime kilns, and 
that reducing the sulfur content of heating oil was a reasonable 
strategy. Additionally, MANE-VU determined that due to the lack of 
specific data for the wide range of residential wood boilers, it was 
not reasonable to set particular reductions amounts for emissions from 
residential wood boilers.
    New York adopted controls on EGUs, boilers and cement kilns. While 
New York's plan does not include emission reduction regulations for 
residential wood boilers, New York will consider state specific wood 
burning provisions, which was the strategy agreed to by the MANE-VU 
states. ICI boiler controls were implemented as an Ozone Transport 
Commission (OTC) regional measure for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> controls 
that have benefits for reducing regional haze. More details on the 
adopted controls are described later in this section.
    After identifying potential control measures and performing the 
four factor analysis, MANE-VU performed initial modeling that showed 
the visibility impacts from the implementation of the measures. The 
initial modeling results showed that the projected 2018 visibility on 
the 20% worst days at the Class I areas affected by New York's 
emissions was at least as good at the uniform rate of progress. Details 
of MANE-VU's initial modeling were later documented in the MANE-VU 
Modeling for RPGs report.\11\ Based on the modeling results and other 
analysis performed by MANE-VU, the MANE-VU states developed ``Asks,'' 
which are ``emission management'' strategies. These strategies served 
as the basis for the consultation with the other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ MANE-VU Modeling for Reasonable Progress Goals. February 7, 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the modeling needed to assess the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPG, MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for 
four inventory source classifications: (1) stationary point sources, 
(2) area sources, (3) off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile 
sources. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 
also developed an inventory of biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-
VU region. Stationary point emission sources are those sources that 
emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, depending on the 
pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. Area source 
emissions are from stationary sources whose individual emissions are 
relatively small, but due to the large number of these sources, the 
collective emissions from the source category could be significant. 
Off-road mobile source emissions are from equipment that can move but 
do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source emissions are from 
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system. The 
emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road 
type. Biogenic sources emissions are from natural sources like trees, 
crops, grasses, and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources 
emission data is tracked at the facility level. For all other source

[[Page 24801]]

types emissions are summed on the county level.
    There are many Federal and state control programs being implemented 
that MANE-VU and New York anticipate will reduce emissions between the 
baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control 
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement 
by 2018 in the Class I areas affected by New York's emissions. To 
assess emissions reductions from ongoing air pollution control 
programs, BART, and controls required for reasonable progress, MANE-VU 
states developed emissions projections for 2018. The 2018 emissions 
inventory in Table 2 is a projection of emissions based on the measures 
the states need to adopt to achieve reasonable programs. The states 
submit SIPs that have adopted and enforceable requirements, as well as 
Federal programs, such as Federal motor vehicle control programs and 
maximum achievable control technologies (MACT).
    These measures are included in the MANE-VU modeling used to 
determine the amount of visibility improvement in Class I areas. MANE-
VU States agreed to implement several measures at the state level. 
These measures are: A timely implementation of BART requirements, 90 
percent or more reduction in sulfur dioxide at 167 EGU stacks 
identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures), and low 
sulfur fuel oil regulations (with limits specified for each state).
    Controls from various Federal MACT regulations were also utilized 
in the development of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These 
MACTs include the industrial boiler/process heater MACT, the combustion 
turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines MACTs, and the 
VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT standards.
    EPA's industrial boiler/process heater MACT was vacated on June 8, 
2007.\12\ EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT 
(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). 
On May 18, 2011 EPA stayed the Industrial Boiler MACT rule. 76 FR 28662 
(May 18, 2011). The stay was vacated and remanded by the court on 
January 9, 2012.\13\ EPA published a reconsideration and proposed 
amendment to the Industrial Boiler MACT rule for major sources on 
December 23, 2011, 76 FR 80598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
    \13\ Sierra v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 11-1278 (PLF) (D.C. 
Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MANE-VU States, including New York, included these controls in 
modeling for their regional haze SIPs. EPA accepts these emission 
reductions in the modeling for the following reasons. In December 2011, 
EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur 
and intends to issue a final rule, giving New York sufficient time to 
assure the required controls are in place prior to the end of the first 
planning period on July 31, 2018. In the absence of an established MACT 
for boilers and process heaters, the statutory language in section 
112(j) of the Act specifies a schedule for the incorporation of 
enforceable MACT-equivalent limits into the Title V operating permits 
of affected sources. Should circumstances warrant the need to rely on 
section 112(j) of the Act for industrial boilers, compliance with case-
by-case MACT limits for industrial boilers would occur no later than 
January 2015, which is well before the 2018 RPGs for regional haze. The 
RHR also provides that any resulting differences between emissions 
projections and actual emissions reductions that may occur will be 
addressed during the five-year review prior to the next regional haze 
SIP. In addition, the expected reductions due to the original, vacated 
Industrial Boiler MACT rule were relatively small compared to the 
State's projected total SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in 2018 (i.e., one to 
two percent of the projected 2018 SO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) inventory), and are not 
likely to affect any of MANE-VU's modeling conclusions. Thus, even if 
there is a need to address discrepancies between the projected 
emissions reductions from the now vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and 
actual reductions achieved by the replacement MACT, we do not expect 
that this would be significant enough to affect the adequacy of New 
York's Regional Haze SIP.
    The MANE-VU modeling predicts that these measures will result in 
emission reductions that will produce improved visibility, meeting the 
reasonable progress goal for the first period ending in 2018, with the 
following measures: BART controls on all BART-eligible facilities, 90 
percent or more control at the 19 New York units from the 167 EGU units 
identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures), and 
adoption of the lower limits on sulfur in fuel oil. New York would 
fulfill its share of reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress 
goal only when it submits its outstanding finalized permits in a timely 
manner which meet the emission limits in EPA's proposed FIP for those 
BART sources.
    The MANE-VU States' goal was to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from the largest emission units in the eastern United States by 90 
percent or, if it was infeasible to achieve that level of reduction, 
states could identify an alternative that could include reductions from 
other point sources. Of the 167 units identified by MANE-VU as having 
the highest SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in the eastern United States, 19 
are in New York. New York met the MANE-VU States' goal of reducing 
emissions from its portion of the 167 EGU stacks by 90 percent using 
emission reductions from 19 EGUs and other point sources in order to 
meet that portion of New York's contribution to meeting the reasonable 
progress goals.
    In addition, New York is evaluating other control measures, 
including energy efficiency, alternative clean fuels, and other 
measures to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from all 
coal-burning facilities by 2018 and new source performance standards 
for wood combustion. New York State developed a rulemaking and 
regulatory program to control outdoor wood boilers to address a 
category of sources that is of concern to many states, especially those 
in the Northeast. In addition to the above measures, a number of 
measures intended to reduce the emissions of VOCs and nitrogen oxides 
are being implemented as a part of the ozone SIPs that have been 
submitted to EPA.
    Federal measures and other control programs relied upon by New York 
include EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; measures adopted for New York's 
1-hour and 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs, Federal 2007 
heavy duty diesel engine standards for on-road trucks and busses; 
Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; Federal large 
spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-road 
diesel rules. New York also relied on emission reductions from a 
Federal MACT that was vacated, but, as described above, the expected 
reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> and PM resulting from both the vacated 
Industrial Boiler MACT and the proposed revisions to the revised 
Industrial Boiler MACT rule are relatively small components of the New 
York inventory. EPA expects the revised Industrial Boiler MACT rule to 
be adopted by 2018, and therefore the vacatur of the original 
Industrial Boiler MACT rule should not negatively affect fulfillment of 
the RPGs across the northeast. In addition, the RHR requires that any 
resulting differences between emissions projections and actual

[[Page 24802]]

emissions reductions that may occur will be addressed during the five-
year review prior to the next 2018 Regional Haze SIP.
2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 
states, the District of Columbia and tribal nations located in Mid-
Atlantic and Northeast portions of the United States. The modeling 
analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of 
the modeling system. MANE-VU used a modeling system described below and 
discussed in more detail in the TSD.
    The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) version 
4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable of addressing ozone, PM, 
visibility and acid deposition on a regional scale. CMAQ modeling of 
regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and 2018 was carried out 
on a grid of 12 x 12 kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 MANE-VU 
States and the District of Columbia and states adjacent to them. This 
grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling grid of 36 x 36 
km grid cells that covers the continental United States, portions of 
Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans 
along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative period of 
meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality conditions 
and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes in 
emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an in-
depth analysis that resulted in the selection of the entire year of 
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology 
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU States' 
modeling was developed consistent with EPA guidance.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 
Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the 
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess 
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the Class I area states 
provided supporting documentation for all required analyses used to 
determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used to 
develop the glide path and to support the LTS are consistent with EPA's 
RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA accepts the MANE-
VU technical modeling to support the LTS and determine visibility 
improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the modeling 
system was chosen and used in accordance with EPA Modeling Guidance. 
EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model performance procedures and results, 
and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for the regional haze 
assessments for the Class I areas in MANE-VU and the states' LTS and 
for New York's Regional Haze SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed 
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and 
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant 
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
    MANE-VU's contribution assessment demonstrated that sulfate is the 
major contributor to PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass and visibility impairment at 
Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate 
particles commonly account for 50 to over 80 percent of particle-
related light extinction at northeastern Class I areas. For example, 
for the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class I area, on the 20 
percent worst visibility days in 2000-2004, sulfate accounted for 66 
percent of the particles responsible for light extinction. After 
sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts for the next largest 
fraction of light extinction due to particles. Organic carbon accounted 
for 13 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent worst visibility 
days for Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts for 9 percent of 
light extinction. These findings are true, in general, for Class I 
areas across MANE-VU.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU 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 MANE-VU region, more than any 
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role 
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions 
management approach should rely heavily on broad-based regional 
SO<INF>2</INF> control efforts in the eastern United States for the 
first planning period. EPA proposes to accept this conclusion as a 
reasonable strategy in the eastern United States where reductions in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions will result in the greatest improvements in 
visibility.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
    Since New York does not have a Class I area, it is not required to 
establish RPGs. However, emissions from New York that contribute to 
Regional Haze have been identified as influencing the visibility 
impairment at a number of Class I areas in the MANE-VU States. 
Particularly, New Hampshire and New Jersey have notified New York of 
their impact on Class I areas in their states, specifically, the Lye 
Brook Wilderness Area and the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, 
respectively. New York, as a MANE-VU state, participated in 
consultations to discuss the reasonable progress goals being considered 
by MANE-VU States for the affected Class I area. As a result, to meet 
the reasonable progress goals and the long-term goal of no 
anthropogenic obstruction to visibility, the MANE-VU States agreed to 
implement the following measures, or substitute a similar quantity of 
emission reductions in their place: Timely implementation of BART 
requirements; a 90 percent reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
each of the EGU stacks identified by MANE-VU

[[Page 24803]]

comprising a total of 167 stacks (19 are located in New York); adoption 
of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and continued evaluation of other 
control measures to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions.
a. Application of Modeling To Demonstrate Reasonable Progress
    The modeling that supported these analyses of how to demonstrate 
reasonable progress predicted that these emission control regulations 
would result in improved visibility which would meet the reasonable 
progress goals at MANE-VU Class I areas by 2018. At the time of MANE-VU 
modeling, some of the other states with sources potentially impacting 
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU domain had not yet made 
final control determinations for BART, and thus, these controls are not 
included in the modeling prepared by MANE-VU and used by Class I area 
states to determine RPGs. At that time, not all of the emission 
reductions from New York's BART-eligible sources were included in the 
modeling. Any controls resulting from those determinations will provide 
additional emissions reductions and resulting visibility improvement, 
and improve the likelihood that RPGs will be met in the Class I areas 
in the northeast. This modeling demonstrates that the 2018 base control 
scenario provides for an improvement in visibility equal to the uniform 
rate of progress for the Class I areas in MANE-VU 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.
    The modeling that supported the analysis of these RPGs is 
consistent with EPA guidance. The Regional Haze Rules 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, states 
subject to CAIR with Class I areas and that are in MANE-VU, took into 
account emission reductions anticipated from CAIR in determining their 
2018 RPGs. MANE-VU approximated the impact of CAIR by reducing 
emissions from 167 EGUs by ninety percent. But this reduction was 
larger, in total tons of emissions reduced, than the reductions 
expected from CAIR, so MANE-VU added emissions across the modeling 
domain to more closely approximate the emission reductions from CAIR. 
These `add back' emissions, kept the MANE-VU States' modeling from 
overestimating the improvement in visibility from those states that use 
EPA transport reduction rules as their response to MANE-VU's ``ask'' of 
ninety percent reductions from the 167 EGUs in the eastern United 
States.
    As discussed in Section I of this action, EPA anticipates that the 
CSAPR will result in similar or better improvements in visibility than 
those predicted from CAIR. Because the CSAPR was recently finalized, 
EPA does not know at this time how it will affect any individual Class 
I area and cannot accurately model future conditions based on its 
implementation. However, by the time New York is required to undertake 
its five year progress review, it is likely that the impact of the 
CSAPR's contribution to visibility impairment in Class I areas in MANE-
VU States will be assessed. The reductions at New York's 19 EGU stacks, 
combined with additional reductions described later in this section, 
exceed 90 percent and are greater than the anticipated reductions from 
CAIR or CSAPR. Thus it is likely New York will have contributed its 
share of reductions that were modeled to produce the RPGs at Class I 
areas impacted by New York. However, New York must still submit its 
finalized permits in a timely manner, at the emission limits that EPA 
has proposed to approve in our FIP or EPA implements the FIP in place 
of New York's BART limits. If, for a particular Class I area, these 
reductions do not provide similar or greater benefits than CAIR and 
meeting the RPGs at one of its Class I areas is in jeopardy, the state 
will be required to address this circumstance in its five year review.
    The RPGs for the Class I areas in states affected by emissions from 
New York are based on modeled projections of future conditions that 
were developed using the best available information at the time the 
analysis was completed. While MANE-VU's emission inventory, used for 
modeling, included estimates of future emission growth, projections can 
change as additional information regarding future conditions becomes 
available. It would be both impractical and resource-intensive to 
require a state to continually adjust the RPG every time an event 
affecting these future projections changed. At the same time, EPA 
established a requirement for a five-year, midcourse review and, if 
necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 
52.308(g). New York committed to the midcourse review and submitting 
revisions to the regional haze plan where necessary.
b. How New York's Plan Addresses Its Share of Reductions Toward Meeting 
the Reasonable Progress Goal
    Altogether, these emission controls--a 90 percent reduction in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs, emission reductions from BART-
eligible sources and a low sulfur fuel oil strategy--are reasonable 
measures for the reduction strategy required by EPA's RHR. EPA agrees 
that emission reductions from these measures or their equivalent, 
including when New York's BART program is implemented or when EPA's FIP 
alternative is in place, will provide the emission reductions New York 
needs to meet its share of the improvements in visibility needed to 
meet the RPG goals to assist visibility improvement at other Class I 
areas affected by New York's emissions.
    To address the MANE-VU ``ask'', New York needs to reduce emissions 
at its 19 major source stacks by 90 percent or more or find equivalent 
emission reductions. Based on EPA's tabulation of emission reductions 
from these sources, the total reduction in emissions is less than 90 
percent. In addition, New York has equivalent emission reductions from 
two non-EGU sources beyond the planned BART controls included in MANE-
VU's modeling. These two sources, Kodak and LaFarge Building Materials, 
were modeled in the MANE-VU's modeling with reduced emissions based on 
an initial BART analysis. However, their emissions will be reduced 
further based on the recent New York proposed BART determinations for 
these facilities which will result in the shutdown of portions of these 
facilities that were to be subject to BART. These tons of sulfur 
emissions beyond the non-EGU BART modeled by MANE-VU fulfill the goal 
of 90 percent reduction from New York's share of the 167 major source 
stacks.
    As explained in more detail in the TSD, New York's share of the 90 
percent reduction from the 167 major emission stacks in the MANE-VU 
modeling is 90 percent of 132,959 tons per year of sulfur emissions 
modeled in the 2002 base case, or 13,296 tons per year.
    As shown in the TSD, EPA calculated the remaining emissions from 
New York's 19 major EGUs after application of BART to total 22,406 tons 
per year of SO<INF>2</INF>; that is a reduction of 83 percent or 9,110 
tons per year short of the 90 percent reduction target. However, this 
remaining tonnage is more than made up for by the reduction of 11,195 
tons of SO<INF>2</INF> beyond the modeled BART controls at the two non-
EGU facilities discussed above.

[[Page 24804]]

    Thus, New York State's emission reductions from its 19 EGUs and the 
additional reductions beyond BART from the two non-EGU sources are 
sufficient to exceed its share of the emission reductions in the MANE-
VU modeling needed to meet the 90 percent emission reduction target for 
the MANE-VU ``ask''.
    With respect to New York's low sulfur fuel strategy, this section 
describes how these programs fulfill the emission reductions projected 
in the modeling used to demonstrate reasonable progress by the end of 
the first period in 2018.
    According to New York's Regional Haze SIP, the MANE-VU modeling 
projected a reduction of 71,759 ton per year resulting from a low 
sulfur fuel strategy in New York. New York enacted legislation to limit 
sulfur in number 2 oil to 15 ppm by 2012, providing a projected 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission reduction of 54,090 tons per year. Based on 
this information, to meet the MANE-VU ``ask'' New York would have to 
obtain additional emission reductions of 17,699 tons per year. New York 
anticipates expanding the low sulfur fuel limits to other types of oil 
to meet the specifications of the MANE-VU program. However, if New York 
does not implement this expanded program by the time EPA takes final 
action on this Haze SIP, New York's emissions will be 17,699 tons 
greater than the emissions modeled by MANE-VU which showed achievement 
of the 2018 progress goal.
    While New York will obtain additional emission reductions through 
expansion of their low sulfur fuel strategy, EPA notes that MANE-VU 
added back into the modeling inventory 23,100 tons per year in New York 
to better approximate the likely reductions from EPA's proposed 
transport rules. These added back emissions of 23,100 tons per year of 
SO<INF>2</INF> are more than the needed 17,699 tons per year from New 
York's expanded Sulfur in Fuel rule.
    Therefore, while New York did not implement all of the parts of the 
programs included in the MANE-VU `ask', the overall reduction of 
emissions in New York State will achieve all of the emission reductions 
in the MANE-VU set of reasonable measures, and insure that New York 
emission reductions will meet the amount of emission reductions needed 
for its contribution toward attaining the reasonable progress goal in 
the period ending in 2018.
    In summary, New York used the MANE-VU analysis which defined the 
reasonable progress goals, and reasonable measures needed to achieve 
emission reductions to meet these goals. The reasonable measures 
analyses considered the cost of compliance, the time necessary for 
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and 
the remaining useful life of the existing sources subject to such 
requirements. This led to the MANE-VU States' agreement to use a 90 
percent reduction in EGU stacks, low sulfur fuel and BART as reasonable 
controls, or to determine equivalent amounts of reductions to reach the 
goals. EPA notes that letters from states with Class I areas affected 
by New York's emissions (New Jersey and New Hampshire), did not ask for 
any additional controls beyond those specified in the MANE-VU analyses. 
These MANE-VU controls, plus other existing measures and the input from 
the MANE-VU consultations, were modeled to project the 2018 visibility 
levels. These projections were used in setting the 2018 Reasonable 
Progress Goals. For the Class I areas in MANE-VU, these projections 
meet the Uniform Rate of Progress, an analytical requirement in the 
EPA's RHR. As described above, EPA proposes to concur that New York's 
emission reductions will provide its share of the reductions needed to 
achieve the RPGs at Class I areas in the Northeast United States, if 
New York submits its final permits for its BART sources as SIP 
revisions, matching the emission limits in EPA's FIP alternatives for 
New York's permits.
5. Section 19-0325 of the Environmental Conservation Law--Low Sulfur 
Fuel Oil Strategy
    The MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy includes a reduction of 
distillate oil to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) 
by no later than 2012; <greek-i>4 residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by 
weight no later than 2012; <greek-i>6 residual oil to 0.3-0.5% sulfur 
by weight no later than 2012; and to further reduce the sulfur content 
of distillate oil to 15 ppm by 2016.
    New York satisfied a commitment included in the Regional Haze SIP 
through legislation. New York amended the Environmental Conservation 
Law (ECL) to require a reduction in sulfur for heating oil used in New 
York State, which will aid in reducing sulfates that cause decreased 
visibility. Specifically, Bill Number S1145C amends the ECL by adding a 
new section 19-0325 to require that on or after July 1, 2012, all 
number two heating oil sold for use in residential, commercial, or 
industrial heating within New York State shall not have a sulfur 
content greater than 15 ppm. This requirement was established through 
state legislation rather than rulemaking and is presently in effect 
without a need for rule promulgation.
    In addition, New York is planning to revise 6 NYCRR Subpart 225-1, 
Fuel Composition and Use--Sulfur Limitations to lower current 
distillate and residual oil sulfur-in-fuel limitations. ECL section 19-
0325 establishes the limits for heating oil throughout the State 
beginning on July 1, 2012. New York is including these provisions, and 
plans to establish additional more stringent requirements in Subpart 
225-1 for the remainder of fuel oils. By reducing the sulfur in the 
fuel oils, sulfur oxide emissions and particulate emissions will be 
reduced which will improve visibility and help to attain the PM 2.5 
national ambient air quality standard. EPA notes that existing 
provisions of Subpart 225-1 are incorporated in the current SIP, and 
Subpart 225-1 contains provisions regarding enforcement and compliance, 
recordkeeping, emissions and fuel monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, 
sampling and analysis.
    Major SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions are obtained as a result 
of the legislation being implemented. These reductions are occurring in 
2012, well before the 2016 requirement in MANE-VU's ``ask.'' As 
discussed above, New York expects to achieve the remaining 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions upon amending Subpart 225-1 to establish the 
additional more stringent fuel oil requirements. In the meantime, EPA 
proposes to determine New York's low sulfur fuel oil strategy in 
combination with the other planned reductions will provide the 
necessary reductions from New York for other Class I areas to meet 
their respective RPGs, as described above.
6. BART
    BART is an element of New York's LTS, as well as a requirement to 
evaluate controls for older sources that affect Class I areas. The BART 
regional haze requirement consists of three steps: (a) Identification 
of all the BART eligible sources; (b) an assessment of whether the BART 
eligible sources are subject to BART; and (c) the determination of the 
BART controls.
a. BART-Eligible Sources in New York
    The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the 
BART eligible sources. In its March 2010 SIP submittal, New York 
preliminarily identified twenty sources as BART eligible. Subsequently, 
after further review, New York determined that two sources, the Poletti 
Power Project (Astoria, NY) and the Port Jefferson Energy Center (Port 
Jefferson, NY) were not BART eligible; and New York

[[Page 24805]]

further determined that certain sources at Con Edison's Ravenswood 
Steam Plant were BART eligible. The nineteen sources in Table 3 were 
identified by New York either in its March 2010 Regional Haze SIP 
submittal or in its proposed permits and met the following criteria to 
be classified as BART eligible:
    <bullet> One or more emissions units at the facility are within one 
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158-39159);
    <bullet> The emission unit(s) was in existence on August 7, 1977 
and begun operation after August 6, 1962;
    <bullet> Potential emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM<INF>10</INF> from subject units are 250 tons or more per year.
    These criteria are from section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, codified 
in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y.

                      Table 3--BART-Eligible Facilities Identified by the State of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facilities                    Units              Pollutants       Location (county)      Permit I.D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Grid EF Barrett Power    Boiler 2...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Nassau.............     1-2820-00553
 Station.
National Grid Northport Power     Boilers 1,2,3,4....  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Suffolk............     1-4726-00130
 Station.
Con Ed 59th Street Station......  Steam Boilers 114,   NOX, SO2, PM.......  New York...........     2-6202-00032
                                   115.
NRG Arthur Kill GS..............  Boiler 30..........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Richmond...........     2-6403-00014
TC Ravenswood LLC Ravenswood GS.  Boilers 10, 20, 30.  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Queens.............     2-6304-00024
Trans Canada/Con Ed Ravenswood    Boiler 2...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Queens.............     2-6304-01378
 Steam Plant.
GenOn (Miriant) Bowline GS......  Boilers 1 and 2....  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Rockland...........     3-3922-00003
Dynegy Danskammer GS............  Boiler 4...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Orange.............     3-3346-00011
Dynegy Roseton GS...............  Boilers 1 and 2....  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Orange.............     3-3346-00075
Holcim (US) Inc Catskill Plant..  Wet Process Kiln     NOX, SO2, PM.......  Green..............     4-1926-00021
                                   (cement plant).
Lafarge Building Materials        Wet Process Kilns 1  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Albany.............     4-0124-00001
 Ravena Plant.                     and 2 (cement
                                   plant).
Owens Corning Insulating          Emission Units EU2,  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Albany.............     4-0122-00004
 Systems, LLC--Delmar Plant.       EU3, EU12, EU13,
                                   EU14.
International Paper Ticonderoga   Power Boiler,        NOX, SO2, PM.......  Essex..............     5-1548-00008
 Mill.                             Recovery Boiler.
Lehigh Northeast Cement.........  Process Kiln         NOX, SO2, PM.......  Warren.............     5-5205-00013
                                   (cement plant).
Alcoa Massena Operations West     Potline, Baking      NOX, SO2, PM.......  St. Lawrence.......     6-4058-00003
 Plant.                            Furnace, Package
                                   Boilers.
NRG Oswego Harbor Power.........  Units 5, 6.........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Oswego.............     7-3512-00030
GDF Suez Syracuse Energy Corp...  Boiler 1...........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Onondaga...........     7-3132-00052
Eastman Kodak/Duke Energy GS      Boilers 41, 42, 43.  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Monroe.............     8-2614-00205
 Kodak Park Division.
Jamestown BPU Samuel A Carlson    Boiler 12..........  NOX, SO2, PM.......  Chautauqua.........     9-0608-00053
 GS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines recommend addressing SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF> as visibility-impairment 
pollutants. The Guidelines note that states can decide whether to 
evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions. New York did not develop additional 
strategies for VOC or ammonia emissions in its SIP. EPA proposes to 
agree with New York's determination because of the relative uncertainty 
to estimate emissions and model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility, 
and because New York is aggressively addressing VOCs through its 
approved ozone SIPs. In summary, EPA agrees with New York's 
determination that SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> are the pollutants reasonably anticipated to 
contribute to visibility impairment to target under BART.
    The second component of the BART evaluation is to identify those 
BART eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area. As discussed 
in the BART guidelines, a state may choose to consider all BART 
eligible sources to be subject to BART (70 FR 39.161). The MANE-VU 
Board decided in June 2004 that because of the collective importance of 
BART sources, BART determinations should be made by the MANE-VU States 
for each BART eligible source. New York followed this approach by 
identifying each of its BART eligible sources as subject to BART, (see 
Table 3 above).
b. BART Evaluations for Sources Identified as BART by New York
    The final component of a BART evaluation is making BART 
determinations for all BART subject sources. In making BART 
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the Act 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 that may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. However, a source that implements the maximum 
feasible level of control for its emissions has met the BART 
requirements, and no further analysis is needed. Conversely, a source 
that limits its emissions via an enforceable permit limit no longer 
needs to be subject to BART review.
    New York properly determined that the nineteen facilities listed in 
Table 3 are subject to BART review. The following summarizes New York's 
BART analyses and EPA's evaluation of New York's analysis for each of 
the nineteen BART facilities. For further details the reader is 
referred to the owner's BART analyses and New York's BART 
determinations located in the docket for this proposal at EPA's Web 
site at www.regulations.gov. References below to New York's draft Title 
V or draft Air Facility permit means that the State has issued the 
permit for public comment over a 30-day period.

[[Page 24806]]

BART Eligible Units That Will Cap Out of BART--One Facility

Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC

    Owens Corning is reducing its annual combustion emissions limit to 
bring the five BART units'(Emission Units EU2 (DM1 Oxy Fuel Furnace), 
EU3 (DM1Forming/Cooling Unit), EU12 (DM2 Oxy Fuel Furnace), EU13 (DM2 
Mixing Chamber), and EU14 (DM2 Smoke Stripper/Cooling Section)) 
cumulative potential to emit each pollutant (NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM) to less than 250 tons per year (tpy) by the 
effective date of the Title V permit, which New York expects to be by 
mid -2012. As a result, none of the three pollutants will exceed the 
BART threshold and Owens Corning will not be subject to further BART 
analyses. EPA proposes approval of this BART evaluation since it 
conforms to EPA Guidance that allows a source to cap out of BART by 
reducing emissions from BART eligible sources to below the BART 
threshold of 250 tpy. The implementation date for the cap out, emission 
limits, monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements will be 
included in New York's final Title V permit.

BART Eligible Units That Will Permanently Shut Down--Four Facilities

    Owners of BART eligible units at four of the nineteen facilities 
listed in Table 3 above have decided to shut down those units rather 
than install BART to control emissions of NO<INF>X,</INF> 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM. The four facilities include Lafarge Building 
Materials Inc, Syracuse Energy Corporation, Samuel A. Carlson 
Generating Station, and Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant. New York will 
be including the compliance shutdown dates in either final State 
Facility permits or final Title V permits and submitting them to EPA 
for approval as a SIP revision by mid-2012, after the opportunity for 
public comment. These permit conditions become federally enforceable 
when the State submits the BART portions of the permits to EPA for 
approval as a supplement to the RH SIP. The Lafarge facility is under 
an existing federal consent decree and the shutdown date for the BART 
eligible units is therefore already federally enforceable. Therefore 
EPA proposes approval of the permanent shut down of the BART eligible 
units for the purpose of meeting BART at the four facilities discussed 
immediately below. Should New York not submit the final Title V permit 
for each applicable facility (except the Lafarge facility) in a timely 
manner, EPA proposes that the aforementioned BART requirements be 
considered as federal requirements as part of a FIP.

Lafarge Building Materials, Inc

    Lafarge Building Materials Inc owns a facility that manufactures 
Portland cement that is located near Ravena, NY. New York determined 
that the two existing long wet kilns, kilns 1 and 2 (Emission Unit 0-
41000; Emission sources 4KLN1 and 4KLN2, respectively), are BART 
eligible. In January 2010, Lafarge entered into a Consent Decree with 
EPA \15\ which contains a compliance schedule for the Ravena Plant to 
either modernize the existing plant, retrofit the existing kilns with 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> controls, or retire the kilns. In a 
letter to New York dated September 30, 2011, Lafarge informed the State 
of its intent to modernize the existing plant by replacing the two 
existing long wet kilns with a new short dry kiln and pre-heater pre-
calciner tower in compliance with the consent decree. In accordance 
with the consent decree, kilns 1 and 2 are to be retired within 180 
days after commencement of operation of the new kiln; and the latest 
date to start operation of the new kiln is January 1, 2015. Therefore, 
the latest date that kilns 1 and 2 can be in operation is June 30, 
2015. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve New York's BART 
determination that Lafarge's two existing long wet kilns, kilns 1 and 
2, will permanently shut down in accordance with conditions set forth 
in the existing federally enforceable consent decree announced in 
January 2010. Should the existing federally enforceable consent decree 
be revised under agreement by all parties, New York must submit any 
revisions to EPA as a SIP revision for the purpose of complying with 
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On January 21, 2010, EPA announced that the U.S. filed 
Clean Air Act settlements to reduce air emissions from container 
glass and Portland cement plants throughout the country. (Case 3:10-
cv-000440JPG-CJP) This settlement includes Portland cement plants 
owned by Lafarge Company, including one located at Ravena, NY that 
has two wet kilns that New York has identified as BART-eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Syracuse Energy Corporation

    The Syracuse Energy Corporation (SEC), located in Geddes, NY, owns 
and operates a coal-fired boiler (Unit 1) with a heat input greater 
than 250 million BTUs per hour (mm BTU/hr) that is BART eligible. In a 
letter to New York dated September 22, 2010, SEC stated that it would 
either accept NESCAUM/New York's visibility modeling results if they 
showed an insignificant impact or otherwise shut down the boiler by 
January 1, 2014, the BART compliance date established by 6 NYCRR Part 
249, NY's BART regulation. New York subsequently decided that SEC's 
Unit 1 was BART eligible and accepted SEC's decision to permanently 
shut down Unit 1. The shutdown compliance schedule for Unit 1 is 
included in the facility's draft Title V permit. EPA expects to receive 
the final Title V permit from New York as a SIP revision by mid-2012. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve New York's decision that SEC's 
Unit 1 will permanently shut down by January 1, 2014 and is exempt from 
implementing any BART controls.

Samuel A. Carlson Generating Station

    The Samuel A. Carlson (SAC) Generating Station is a municipal 
electric power generating plant owned and operated by the Jamestown 
Board of Public Utilities (JBPU). The facility operates three coal 
fired boilers (Boilers <greek-i>9, <greek-i>10 and <greek-i>12) with a 
combined output of 49 megawatts. New York has determined that Boiler 12 
is BART eligible and JBPU has decided to permanently shut down Boiler 
12 by January 1, 2014 in order to be exempt from the BART requirements 
for that unit. This shut down compliance date for Boiler 12 is included 
in the New York's final Title V permit. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
approve New York's decision that SAC's Unit 12 will permanently shut 
down by January 1, 2014 and is exempt from implementing any BART 
controls.

Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant

    The Holcim (US)--Catskill Plant owns a Portland cement and quarry 
operation located in Catskill, NY. New York has determined that 
Emission Unit U-00K18, Emission Source 0KILN is BART eligible. This 
BART eligible source includes a wet process kiln along with a clinker 
cooler and finish mill air separators. The wet process kiln accounts 
for virtually all of the gaseous emissions (e.g., NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF>) from the plant and the majority of the plant's PM 
emissions. The clinker cooler and finish mill air separators are 
primarily sources of PM emissions. In an email dated January 31, 2012, 
New York informed EPA that the owner has decided to permanently shut 
down the BART eligible units and will surrender their permits. New York 
has informed EPA that the wet process kiln has not been in operation 
since October 2010 and the Title V permit has expired, effective 
February 13, 2012. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve New York's 
decision that Holcim's wet kiln and clinker cooler are now permanently 
shutdown.

[[Page 24807]]

Fourteen Facilities Will Implement BART Requirements

Con Ed--59th Street Station

    This facility, owned by Consolidated Edison Company of New York 
(Con Ed), operates two very large boilers,\16\ Boilers 114 (Emission 
Unit 5-90020; Emission source 00114) and 115 (Emission Unit 5-90020; 
Emission source 00115), as well as other boilers and a combustion 
turbine at its 59th Street Station in New York City. New York has 
determined that Boilers 114 and 115 are both BART eligible units. 
Boilers 114 and 115 are each fixed-tangential units with a design 
maximum heat input capacity of 805 mm BTU/hr. Both boilers combust 
(primarily) low sulfur (0.30 percent sulfur by weight) residual oil 
(Number 6 fuel oil), with natural gas used for ignition. New York 
indicates that these two boilers are used to generate steam only and do 
not generate electricity but follow a steam load which results in 
limited operation and significant unused capacity. Con Ed's BART 
submittal indicates that the average annual capacity for the years 
2007-2009 is about 55%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ At 6 NYCRR Part 200--General Provisions, New York defines a 
very large boiler as ``a boiler with a maximum heat input capacity 
greater than 250 million British thermal units (BTU) per hour,'' 
i.e. 250 mm BTU/hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Con Ed submitted a BART determination to New York and the State 
agreed with the owner's recommendations that the current operations 
constitute BART. For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is 
proposing that the current use of low sulfur (0.30% by weight) No. 6 
fuel oil represents BART.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed Con Ed's 
BART analysis that considered seven different controls (two of which 
are technically infeasible), including Selective Catalytic Reduction 
(SCR), and the State is proposing that the current use of off-
stoichiometric firing with an emission limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU (on a 
30-day rolling average), when combusting either No. 6 fuel oil or 
natural gas, represents BART for each boiler. New York's BART analysis 
for NO<INF>X</INF> concluded that each of the technically feasible 
control options is not cost effective (in the range of $8,717 to 
$31,825) because each boiler typically operates at only 55% capacity. 
New York also reports that Con Ed demonstrated that visibility 
improvement was very low (0.04 dv maximum cumulative at 7 Class I 
areas) when evaluating the NO<INF>X</INF> control option (``water 
injection'' option) that was the closest to, but still higher than, New 
York's $5,500/ton cost effectiveness threshold.
    For control of PM emissions, New York reviewed Con Ed's BART 
analysis that considered three potential add-on control technologies 
but Con Ed determined, and New York agreed, that these technologies do 
not appear to be demonstrated in practice for a utility boiler that 
combusts oil as the primary fuel. New York has determined that BART 
control of PM emissions is the continued use of current operations that 
includes good combustion practices and the use of low sulfur fuel, with 
an emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU (by stack tests) representing BART 
for each boiler. The aforementioned BART requirements for each boiler 
are included in New York's draft Title V permit including requirements 
for monitoring, record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance 
date of January 1, 2014. New York finalized the draft Title V permit on 
March 20, 2012 and expects to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA 
approval by mid-2012.

Con Ed--Ravenswood Steam Plant

    This facility, owned by Consolidated Edison Company of New York 
(Con Ed), operates one very large boiler, Boiler 2 (Emission Source 
ESAH2), as well as three other boilers at its Ravenswood Steam Plant in 
Queens County, a borough of New York City. New York has determined that 
Boiler 2 is a BART eligible unit. Boiler 2 is a front-wall fired unit 
with a design maximum heat input capacity of 424 mm BTU/hr. Boiler 2 
combusts (primarily) low sulfur (0.30 percent sulfur by weight) 
residual oil (Number 6 fuel oil), with natural gas used for ignition. 
New York indicates that Boiler 2 is used to generate steam only and 
does not produce electricity but follows a steam load which results in 
limited operation and significant unused capacity. Con Ed's BART 
submittal indicates that the average annual capacity for the years 
2007-2009 is about 21%.
    Con Ed submitted a BART determination to New York and the State 
agreed with the owner's recommendations that the current operations 
constitute BART. For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is 
proposing that the current use of low sulfur (0.30% by weight) No. 6 
fuel oil represents BART.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed Con Ed's 
BART analysis that considered seven control options (two of which are 
technically infeasible), including Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), 
and the State is proposing that the current operation with good 
combustion/operating practices with an emission limit of 0.32 lb/mm BTU 
(on a 30-day rolling average), when combusting either No. 6 fuel oil or 
natural gas, represents BART for Boiler 2. New York's BART analysis for 
NO<INF>X</INF> concluded that each of the technically feasible control 
options is not cost effective because each boiler operates at a low 
annual capacity. New York also reports that Con Ed demonstrated that 
visibility improvement was very low (0.01 to 0.02 dv) when assuming a 
NO<INF>X</INF> control reduction of 30%.
    For control of PM emissions, New York reviewed Con Ed's BART 
analysis that considered three potential add-on control technologies 
but Con Ed determined, and New York agreed, that these technologies are 
not demonstrated in practice for a utility boiler that combusts oil as 
the primary fuel. New York has determined that BART control of PM 
emissions is the continued use of current operations that includes good 
combustion practices and the use of low sulfur fuel, with an emission 
limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU representing BART for Boiler 2.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boiler 2 are included in 
New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for monitoring, 
record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date of January 
1, 2014. New York finalized the draft Title V permit on March 20, 2012 
and expects to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-
2012.

Trans Canada (TC) Ravenswood LLC--Ravenswood Generating Station

    This facility, owned by TC Ravenswood LLC, operates three very 
large boilers, Boilers 10 (Emission Unit U-00010; Emission Source 
ES10H/ES10R), 20 (Emission Unit U-00020; Emission Source ES20H/ES20R), 
and 30 (Emission Unit U-00030; Emission Source ES30H/ES30R), as well as 
combustion turbines at its Ravenswood Generating Station in Queens 
County, a borough of New York City. New York has determined that 
Boilers 10, 20 and 30 are each BART eligible units. Each unit combusts 
primarily natural gas but low sulfur No. 6 fuel oil is occasionally 
combusted in order to maintain system reliability whenever natural gas 
is unavailable. These units have maximum heat input rates of 4204 mm 
BTU/hr, 4171 mm BTU/hr, and 9370 mm BTU/hr, respectively and have a 
combined nominal rating of 1752 MW. For controlling air emissions, all 
three units are equipped with close coupled over fire air (CCOFA) 
systems and low NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNBs) for NO<INF>X</INF> 
control while

[[Page 24808]]

SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are limited by the use of low sulfur (0.30%) 
fuel oil.
    TC submitted a BART determination to New York and the State agreed 
with the owner's recommendations. For control of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions, TC proposed, and New York agreed, that the current permitted 
condition that limits the maximum sulfur content of the fuel oil to 
0.30% represents BART for each of the three BART eligible boilers.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed TC's 
BART analysis that considered five control options, including SCR, and 
the State is proposing that the current operation using natural gas as 
the primary fuel with an emission limit of 0.15 lb/mm BTU (on a 30-day 
rolling average) represents BART. TC conducted a BART analysis for the 
100% oil-firing case since the owners considered this condition as the 
highest emission case for all haze-causing emissions. The BART control 
option for NO<INF>X</INF> having the lowest emission limit (reduction 
from 0.24 lb/mm BTU to 0.15 lb/mm BTU) as well as being technically and 
economically feasible is the addition of both separated over fire air 
(SOFA) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). However, since the 
three BART units combust primarily natural gas and combust low sulfur 
fuel oil primarily for reliability purposes, it is unlikely that this 
control option would be cost effective for the few periods when only 
fuel oil is combusted. Therefore BART is determined to be the continued 
operational mode of primarily combusting natural gas. EPA's Clean Air 
Markets Division reports that average NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for the 
five year period from 2006-2010 for natural gas firing varies from 0.06 
to 0.09 lb/mm BTU for these boilers.
    For control of PM emissions, New York reviewed TC's BART analysis 
that considered three potential add-on technologies and one operational 
change switching to low sulfur distillate fuel oil but TC determined, 
and New York agreed, that these add-on technologies and operational 
change are either technically or economically infeasible. New York has 
determined that current operations represent BART for PM on the three 
BART eligible boilers with an emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boilers 10, 20, and 30 are 
included in New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for 
monitoring, record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date 
of January 1, 2014. New York finalized the draft Title V permit on 
April 6, 2012 and expects to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA 
approval by mid-2012.

National Grid--EF Barrett Power Station

    This facility, owned by National Grid Generation LLC, operates one 
very large boiler, Boiler 2 (Emission Unit U-00002; Emission Source 
ES002), as well as another boiler and several combustion turbines at 
its EF Barrett Power Station located in the town of Hempstead in Nassau 
County. New York has determined that Boiler 2 is a BART eligible unit. 
Boiler 2 is a tangentially fired unit rated at a maximum heat input of 
1825 mm BTU/hr and has a generating capacity of 185 MW. Boiler 2 is 
capable of combusting natural gas or oil, though it fires natural gas 
almost exclusively, with low sulfur oil serving as a backup in case of 
gas shortages. National Grid reports that this boiler is no longer a 
base loaded unit but rather a load following unit which can cycle from 
minimum load to full load and back to minimum load daily.
    National Grid submitted a BART determination to New York and the 
State agreed with the owner's recommendations that the current 
operations constitute BART. For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, 
New York is proposing that the current use of low sulfur (0.37%) fuel 
oil represents BART. EPA requested that the State evaluate a BART 
option to limit the amount of fuel oil combusted but New York indicated 
that National Grid is unable to accept a permit condition limiting the 
amount of fuel oil burned, which would limit sulfur emissions, because 
it would detract from the operational flexibility needed to meet the 
requirements of The New York State Reliability Council reliability rule 
I-R5 (the ``minimum oil burn rule'') which promotes reliability of the 
electrical grid within the local New York City area.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed National 
Grid's BART analysis that considered the addition of SCR and SNCR 
controls beyond the existing control technology of separated over fire 
air (SOFA) that was installed in the mid-1990s. National Grid 
determined that SCR is economically infeasible and SNCR is economically 
and technically infeasible due to the load swinging operation of the 
boiler and projected low operating capacity factor of 25%. New York 
also indicated low NO<INF>X</INF> burners were less effective than 
SOFA. Therefore, the State is proposing that SOFA control technology 
with emission limits of 0.10 lb/mm BTU when firing natural gas and 0.20 
lb/mm BTU when firing low sulfur fuel oil, both on a 24-hour average, 
represent BART for Boiler 2.
    For control of PM emissions, National Grid evaluated two control 
technologies and determined that both were economically infeasible. 
Since natural gas is the primary fuel combusted in this boiler, New 
York agreed with this BART analysis and is proposing that current 
operation (no controls), with an emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU 
represents BART for Boiler 2. For this boiler, New York indicates that 
PM from ``unspeciated PM<INF>10</INF>'' emissions is approximately 
0.013 lb/mm BTU.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boiler 2 are included in 
New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for monitoring, 
record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date of January 
1, 2014. New York finalized the draft Title V permit on March 27, 2012 
and expects to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-
2012.

National Grid--Northport Power Station

    This facility, owned by National Grid Generation LLC, operates four 
very large boiler, Boilers 1 (Emission Unit U-00001; Emission Source 
ES001), 2 (Emission Unit U-00002; Emission Source ES003), 3 (Emission 
Unit U-00003; Emission Source ES005), and 4 (Emission Unit U-00004; 
Emission Source ES007), as well as a combustion turbine at its 
Northport Power Station located in the town of Northport in Suffolk 
County. New York has determined that Boilers 1 through 4 are BART 
eligible units. Each of the four BART eligible boilers are identical in 
design: each is a tangentially fired unit rated at a maximum heat input 
of 3695 mm BTU/hr and each has a generating capacity of 385 MW. Each 
boiler is capable of combusting natural gas or oil, although these 
units primarily combust natural gas with backup oil firing capability. 
National Grid reports that these boilers are no longer base loaded 
units but rather load following units which can cycle from minimum load 
to full load and back to minimum load daily.
    National Grid submitted a BART determination to New York and the 
State agreed with the owner's recommendations. For control of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions New York is proposing that BART is the 
lowering of the sulfur content of fuel oil used for combustion in each 
boiler to 0.70% from 1.00% for Boilers 1 through 3 and from 0.75% for 
Boiler 4. EPA requested that the State evaluate a BART option to limit 
the amount of fuel oil combusted but New York indicated that National 
Grid is unable to accept a permit condition limiting the amount of fuel 
oil burned, which would limit sulfur emissions,

[[Page 24809]]

because it would detract from the operational flexibility needed to 
meet the requirements of The New York State Reliability Council 
reliability rule I-R5 (the ``minimum oil burn rule'') which promotes 
reliability of the electrical grid within the local New York City area.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed National 
Grid's BART analysis that considered the addition of SCR, SNCR, and 
SOFA controls beyond the existing control technology of close coupled 
over fire air (CCOFA). National Grid determined that SCR is 
economically infeasible and SNCR is economically and technically 
infeasible due to the load swinging operation of the boiler and 
projected low operating capacity factor of 25%. Therefore, the State is 
proposing that SOFA control technology with emission limits of 0.10 lb/
mm BTU when firing natural gas and 0.20 lb/mm BTU when firing fuel oil, 
both on a 24-hour average, represent BART for each of the four BART 
eligible boilers.
    For control of PM emissions, National Grid determined that there is 
no feasible or cost effective PM control technology beyond the existing 
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) control on each boiler since the 
boilers are predominantly natural gas fired with only a relatively 
small percentage of oil fired. New York agreed with this BART analysis 
and is proposing that the current ESP control with an emission limit of 
0.10 lb/mm BTU represents BART for each of the four BART eligible 
boilers. For these boilers, New York indicates that PM from 
``unspeciated PM<INF>10</INF>'' emissions range from approximately 
0.017 to 0.027 lb/mm BTU.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boiler 2 are included in 
New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for monitoring, 
record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date of January 
1, 2014. New York finalized the draft Title V permit on March 27, 2012 
and expects to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-
2012.

NRG--Arthur Kill Generating Station

    This facility, owned by NRG Energy and permitted to Arthur Kill 
Power LLC, operates two very large boilers, Boiler 20 and 30, as well 
as a combustion turbine and two emergency generators at its Arthur Kill 
Generating Station located in Richmond County in the city of New York. 
New York has determined that Boiler 30 (Emission Unit A-K0001; Emission 
Source 00030) is a BART eligible unit. Boiler 30 is a tangentially 
fired unit rated at a maximum heat input of 5502 mm BTU/hr and has a 
generating capacity of 536 MW. Boiler 30 is capable of combusting 
natural gas or oil, though it has combusted only natural gas for the 
past 10 years. New York's fuel oil regulation, Part 225, restricts the 
sulfur content of residual fuel oil and distillate oil to 0.30% 
(equivalent to about 0.33 lb/mm BTU) and 0.20%, respectively, for 
sources located in New York City.
    NRG submitted a BART determination to New York and the State agreed 
with the owner's recommendations. Since NRG's original BART 
determination, New York has proposed Title V permit conditions that are 
more stringent than NRG's BART proposal in that New York's proposed 
Title V permit limits Boiler 30 to the combustion of natural gas and no 
longer allows the use of fuel oil. Therefore, with the combustion of 
only natural gas, New York expects that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
Boiler 30 will be limited to the current emission rate of 0.0006 lb/mm 
BTU, and the State is proposing a BART SO<INF>2</INF> limit of 0.15 lb/
mm BTU. EPA does not have a presumptive SO<INF>2</INF> BART limit for 
boilers that combust natural gas.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York's draft Title V 
permit requires the combustion of only natural gas and sets a limit of 
0.15 lb/mm BTU based on a 24-hour weighted average during the ozone 
season (May 1 through September 30) and on a 30-day rolling average 
outside the ozone season. New York indicates that the current 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate is 0.088 lb/mm BTU when Boiler 30 combusts 
natural gas. NRG's BART analysis did not evaluate other control 
technologies.
    For control of PM emissions, NRG evaluated two control technologies 
and determined that both were economically infeasible. Since natural 
gas is the primary fuel combusted in this boiler, New York agreed with 
this BART analysis and the draft Title V permit proposes that current 
operation (no controls), with an emission limit of 359 tons per year 
(tpy) represents BART for Boiler 30. NRG's five year (2005 through 
2009) look back at emissions from Boiler 30 indicates 329 tpy PM 
represents the maximum mass emission over a 12 month period. New York's 
limit of 359 tpy provides a reasonable margin of safety to NRG over 
actual emissions.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boiler 30 are included in 
New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for monitoring, 
record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date of January 
1, 2014. New York finalized the draft Title V permit on March 20, 2012 
and expects to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-
2012. New York's draft permit commits NRG to combusting only natural 
gas which will minimize emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
and PM from Boiler 30.

NRG--Oswego Harbor Power

    This facility, owned by NRG Energy and permitted to Oswego Harbor 
Power LLC, operates two very large boilers, Boiler 5 and 6, as well as 
two smaller packaged boilers at its Oswego Harbor Power Station located 
in Oswego County. New York has determined that Boilers 5 (Emission Unit 
U-00005; Emission Source S0005) and 6 (Emission Unit U-00006; Emission 
source S0006) are BART eligible units. Boilers 5 and 6 are nearly 
identical in size (rated maximum heat input of 8033 and 8088 mm BTU/hr, 
respectively) and each is a wall-fired boiler rated at a gross 
generating capacity of 870 MW. Boilers 5 and 6 are capable of 
combusting fuel oil (sulfur content of 1.5% and 0.75%, respectively) 
and Boiler 6 has the capability to co-fire natural gas up to a 
generating capacity of 150 MW. New York indicates that both units are 
essentially ``peaking'' units, with actual recent operating capacity 
being much lower than rated capacity. Each unit had a capacity factor 
of 3.2% or less during the baseline period (2007-2009), and neither 
boiler had a capacity factor above 10% since 2001. New York and NRG 
took these operational characteristics into account in their BART 
analysis.
    NRG submitted a BART determination to New York and the State agreed 
with the owner's recommendations. For control of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions, New York is proposing that Boiler 5 combust fuel oil with a 
sulfur content of not more than 0.75% (lowered from current sulfur 
limit of 1.5%) with an SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.80 lb/mm BTU 
(on a 3-hour rolling average) as representing BART. For Boiler 6, New 
York is proposing that the current fuel oil sulfur limit of 0.75%, with 
an SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.80 lb/mm BTU (on a 3-hour rolling 
average), represents BART. In addition, New York's draft Title V permit 
proposes that NRG shall not purchase or obtain any fuel oil for 
combustion, including Boilers 5 or 6, which has a sulfur content of 
more than 0.50%.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed NRG's 
BART analysis that considered seven standard and four innovative 
control technologies, including SCR and SNCR, and the State concluded 
that none of the technically feasible control options are economically 
feasible because each boiler operates at a low annual capacity. New 
York concluded that BART is the continued use of existing 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls including low NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNB), 
over

[[Page 24810]]

fire air (OFA), and flue gas recirculation (FGR) and the State's draft 
Title V permit requires that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions shall not exceed 
383 tpy and 665 tpy from Boilers 5 and 6, respectively, based upon a 12 
month rolling total. These NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits were 
established below the threshold that would make an additional control 
option economically feasible and are based upon baseline emission rates 
0.22 and 0.19 lb/mm BTU and annual capacity factors of approximately 5% 
and 10% for Boilers 5 and 6, respectively.
    For control of PM emissions, New York reviewed NRG's BART analysis 
that considered two potential add-on control technologies but NRG 
determined, and New York agreed, that these two technologies are not 
cost effective. New York's draft Title V permit proposes that current 
PM control with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) with an emission 
limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU for Boilers 5 and 6 represents BART. New York 
reports that the most recent stack tests measured total PM rates of 
approximately 0.03 lb/mm BTU for each boiler.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boilers 5 and 6 are 
included in New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for 
monitoring, record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date 
of January 1, 2014. New York expects to finalize the draft Title V 
permit and to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-2012. 
New York's draft permit commits NRG to lower emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM due to lower fuel sulfur limits 
and expected low annual capacity factors for Boilers 5 and 6.

Dynegy--Roseton Generating Station

    This facility, owned by and permitted to Dynegy Northeast 
Generation Inc, operates two very large boilers, Boilers 1 and 2, as 
well as one smaller auxiliary boiler, at its Roseton Generating Station 
in Orange County, in the city of Newburgh. New York has determined that 
Boilers 1 (Emission Unit U-R0001) and 2 (Emission Unit U-R0002) are 
BART eligible units. Boilers 1 and 2 are both nearly identical in 
design, each tangentially fired and each rated to generate 600 MW 
electricity. Both boilers are capable of firing No. 6 fuel oil and 
natural gas as the primary fuels. Boiler 1 has a heat input rating of 
7927 mm BTU/hr when burning No. 6 fuel oil and 7369 mm BTU/hr when 
firing natural gas. For Boiler 2, the heat input rating is 7691 mm BTU/
hr when firing No. 6 fuel oil and is the same as Boiler 1 when firing 
natural gas. Both boilers have the same air emissions controls: the 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls employ a combination of fuel oil steam 
atomization, burners out of service (BOOS) and/or wind-box flue gas 
recirculation (FGR); PM emissions are controlled with a multiclone 
mechanical collector; and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are controlled 
through limitations on the sulfur content (1.3%) of No. 6 fuel oil. 
Dynegy has indicated that both boilers have operated at low capacity 
factors over the past few years and the owner projects that the rated 
capacity factors in 2014 for each boiler will be similar as in recent 
past years. New York and Dynegy took these operational characteristics 
into account in their BART analysis.
    Dynegy submitted a BART determination (with 1.3% sulfur fuel oil as 
the base case) to New York and the State agreed with the owner's 
recommendations. For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is 
proposing that BART for Boilers 1 and 2 is the combustion of fuel oil 
with an annual weighted average sulfur limit of 1.0%. Dynegy's five 
factor BART analysis evaluated eight SO<INF>2</INF> control options, 
including wet flue gas desulfurization, combustion of lower sulfur fuel 
oils, as well as 100% gas firing and gas co-firing with fuel oil. 
Dynegy determined cost effectiveness with the projected low capacity 
factors since Dynegy determined that a baseline made on the assumption 
of ``potential to emit'' is not indicative of future operations. As a 
result of the BART analysis, Dynegy concluded for each boiler, and New 
York agreed, that the modeled visibility impacts indicate excessive 
cost per deciview values for all options modeled, with the exception of 
gas firing and gas co-firing with fuel oil. Dynegy and New York also 
concluded that although gas co-firing (and 100% gas firing) appears to 
be feasible with negative annualized costs \17\ (cost/ton and cost/dv), 
it was ruled out as a control option due to high price volatility of 
natural gas and potential reliability concerns on the State's electric 
system due to limited supply of natural gas, particularly during the 
winter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Dynegy notes that a negative annualized cost for gas co-
firing (including 100% gas firing) result from the current lower 
prices of natural gas compared to No. 6 fuel oil (which is the base 
case for the SO<INF>2</INF> BART analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed Dynegy's 
BART analysis that considered fourteen control technologies, including 
SCR and SNCR, and the State concluded that none of the technically 
feasible control options are economically feasible because each boiler 
is projected to operate at a low annual capacity. In addition, Dynegy's 
visibility analysis also concluded economic infeasibility. New York 
concluded that BART is the optimization of the wind-box controls and 
the State's November 2, 2011 final Title V permit requires lowering the 
permitted NO<INF>X</INF> limit from 0.25 lb/mm BTU to 0.20 lb/MM BTU 
based upon a 30-day average during the non-ozone season and on a 24-
hour average during the ozone season.
    For control of PM emissions, New York reviewed Dynegy's BART 
analysis that considered four potential control options, including 
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) and gas co-firing, but Dynegy 
determined, and New York agreed that ESPs are not cost effective and 
gas co-firing is not practical for the same reasons discussed above for 
the SO<INF>2</INF> BART determination. Dynegy expects secondary 
condensable PM emission reductions that will result from its proposed 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> BART control measures. New York's 
final Title V permit proposes that current PM control with multiclone 
mechanical collectors and the current permitted emission limit of 0.10 
lb/mm BTU (by stack tests) for Boilers 1 and 2 represents BART.
    Although EPA agrees with New York's BART determination for 
NO<INF>X</INF> and PM, EPA disagrees with New York's determination that 
the use of fuel oil with a sulfur content of 1.0% is BART for 
controlling SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Instead, EPA is proposing a 
Federal plan requiring that the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Roseton's 
Units 1 and 2 meet an emission limit of 0.55 lb/mm BTU on a 24 hour 
average. EPA proposes that Dynegy's BART eligible units, Roseton Units 
1 and 2, comply with EPA's proposed SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit no 
later than January 1, 2014 which is the compliance date required by New 
York's BART regulation at Part 249. EPA has estimated that No. 6 fuel 
oil containing 0.50% sulfur by weight is equivalent to EPA's proposed 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.55 lb/mm BTU.\18\ EPA's proposed 
emission limit provides flexibility to Dynegy because it allows the 
operators to combust the following fuels or any combination thereof: 
(1) 100% fuel oil with a sulfur content of not more than 0.50% by 
weight; (2) 100% natural gas; and (3) cofiring natural gas and fuel oil 
with a sulfur content either higher or lower than 0.50%. It is EPA's 
understanding that New York plans to propose this year a

[[Page 24811]]

revision to 6 NYCRR Part 225, the state's sulfur in fuel regulation 
that is applicable to industrial boilers, requiring that fuel oil 
containing sulfur content of more than 0.50% no longer be purchased in 
a few years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA did not have the fuel analysis used at the Roseton 
Generating Station. To estimate this emission limit, EPA used an 
average heating value for No. 6 fuel oil of 18,200 BTU per pound as 
found in ``Useful tables for engineers and steam users,'' Fourteenth 
edition 1984, by The Babcock and Wilcox Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to determine this flexibility of combusting various 
fuel combinations in meeting EPA's proposed SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limit should alleviate any concerns Dynegy has on natural gas being 
susceptible to extreme price volatility and limited supply (especially 
during the winter months) that might result in negative reliability 
impacts on the electrical grid. As explained further below, EPA 
believes that an SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.55 lb/mm BTU, 
equivalent to No. 6 fuel oil containing 0.50% sulfur, is cost effective 
on a dollars per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> reduced basis and will provide 
significant improvement in visibility in the range of 1.0 dv or more at 
Lye Brook, and about 4.0+ dv cumulative at the seven Class I areas, 
depending upon the fuel type combusted. EPA considers a visibility 
impact of 1.0 dv as causing visibility impairment and therefore EPA's 
proposed emission limit will significantly reduce visibility impairment 
in the Lye Brook and seven Class I areas. The following paragraph 
provides further details that led to EPA's decision.
    In comparison with Dynegy's baseline (1.3% sulfur fuel oil), it is 
clear from Dynegy's BART analysis that there is significant visibility 
improvement at Lye Brook and seven Class I areas as the SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions are reduced as illustrated in Dynegy's BART control options 
of combusting natural gas, cofiring natural gas with oil and combusting 
fuel oil with sulfur contents lower than 1.3%. From Dynegy's BART 
analysis, the control options for combusting 100% gas and cofiring gas/
oil are cost effective in terms of dollars per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> 
($/ton) reduced from the baseline and in terms of dollars per deciview 
improvement from the baseline. Dynegy's BART recommendation of 1.0% 
sulfur fuel oil is actually less cost effective in terms of $/ton and 
$/dv when compared to Dynegy's other low sulfur fuel oil options of 
0.70% sulfur, 0.50% sulfur and 0.30% sulfur. In addition the visibility 
is improved over the base case (1.3% sulfur oil) by as much as 1.42 ddv 
(i.e., delta deciview) at the 98 percentile and 0.97 ddv maximum at Lye 
Brook for the control option using 0.50% sulfur fuel. Even better 
visibility improvements are achieved for the control option of 60% gas 
cofiring with oil. The visibility improvement for the Dynegy BART 
recommendation (combusting 1% sulfur fuel oil) is only 0.57 dv at the 
98th percentile and 0.57 dv maximum at Lye Brook. The visibility and 
cost comparisons for the various fuel control options discussed here 
are for the Roseton Unit 2 boiler but the results for Unit 1 are 
similar. The reader is referred to the following tables for both 
boilers that summarize the previous discussion as taken directly or 
derived from Dynegy's BART analysis.

                                                                Table 4--Roseton Unit 2 (600 MW)--Summary BART Evaluation for SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Dynegy  Control                                         Visibility        Visibility
                                    Technology                             Cost       Improvement Max/  Improvement Max/   Cost  (mm$/dv)    Cost  (mm$/dv)
 Baseline SO2 Emissions  (tpy)       Options         Emissions, SO2   Effectiveness    8th high from      8th high from    (max/8th high)    (max/8th high)        Current       New York's BART
                                    Evaluated            (tpy)            ($/ton)       baseline DDV    baseline DDV  (7     (Lye Brook)       (7 Class I         Controls        Determination
                                  (partial list)                                        (Lye Brook)      Class I areas)                          areas)
A                               B................  C................             D   E................  F...............  G...............  H...............  I...............  J
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6766 tpy......................  0.30% S oil......  1559 tpy.........        $3,107   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Low sulfur        Use 1.0% S fuel
                                0.5% S oil.......  2600 tpy.........         3,324   0.97/1.42........  8.25/3.96.......  95/65...........  11.2/23.3.......   (1.3%) fuel oil.  oil instead of
                                0.70% oil........  3642 tpy.........         3,684   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......                     current 1.3% S
                                1.0% S oil.......  5204 tpy.........         5,819   0.46/0.57........  3.04/1.50.......  131/106.........  19.9/40.4.......                     fuel oil.
                                Gas cofire (35%).  4333 tpy.........        -6,909   1.02/0.971.......  Not Deter.......  -110/-115.......  Not Deter.......
                                Gas cofire (60%).  2638 tpy.........        -8,506   1.68/1.64........  Not Deter.......  -138/-143.......  Not Deter.
                                100% gas.........  0 tpy............        -9,518   2.8/2.48.........  16.43/7.13......  -153/-173.......  -26/-60
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In columns E and F, DDV means delta-deciview, i.e. visibility improvement.


                                                                Table 5--Roseton Unit 1 (600 MW)--Summary BART Evaluation for SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Dynegy  Control                                         Visibility        Visibility
                                    Technology                             Cost       Improvement Max/  Improvement Max/    Cost (mm$/dv)     Cost (mm$/dv)
 Baseline SO2 Emissions  (tpy)       Options         Emissions, SO2   Effectiveness    8th high from      8th high from    (max/8th high)    (max/8th high)        Current       New York's BART
                                    Evaluated            (tpy)            ($/ton)       baseline DDV    baseline DDV  (7     (Lye Brook)       (7 Class I         Controls        Determination
                                  (partial list)                                        (Lye Brook)      Class I areas)                          areas)
A                               B................  C................             D   E................  F...............  G...............  H...............  I...............  J
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1860 tpy......................  0.30% S oil......  429 tpy..........       $43,107   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Low sulfur        Use 1.0% S fuel
                                0.5% S oil.......  715 tpy..........         3,324   0.853/1.370......  8.45/4.01.......  111/69..........  11.3/23.7.......   (1.3%) fuel oil.  oil instead of
                                0.70% oil........  1001 tpy.........         3,684   Not Deter........  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......  Not Deter.......                     current 1.3% S
                                1.0% S oil.......  1431 tpy.........         5,646   0.339/0.501......  3.17/1.41.......  179/121.........  19.1/42.9.......                     fuel oil.
                                Gas cofire (35%).  1179 tpy.........        -9,908   0.946/0.932......  Not Deter.......  -178/-181.......  Not Deter.......
                                Gas cofire (60%).  713 tpy..........        10,078   1.644/1.622......  Not Deter.......  -176/-178.......  Not Deter.
                                100% gas.........  0 tpy............       -10,361   2.8/2.48.........  15.3/17.3.......  -172/-194.......  -27/-58.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In columns E and F, DDV means delta-deciview, i.e. visibility improvement.

    The aforementioned BART requirements for NO<INF>X</INF> and PM for 
Boilers 1 and 2 are included in New York's final Title V permit (dated 
November 2, 2011) which also includes requirements for monitoring, 
record keeping and reporting, and includes a compliance date of January 
1, 2014. New York expects to submit the permit

[[Page 24812]]

as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-2012. Once the SIP revision 
is approved by EPA, the BART requirements for NO<INF>X</INF> and PM for 
each boiler become federally enforceable. Should New York not submit 
the final Title V permit for Boilers 1 and 2 in a timely manner, EPA 
proposes that the aforementioned BART requirements for NO<INF>X</INF> 
and PM be considered as federal requirements as part of a FIP.
    In addition, as discussed above, EPA is proposing a FIP for 
controlling SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Boilers 1 and 2. EPA proposes 
that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from Boilers 1 and 2 not exceed the limit 
of 0.55 lb/mm BTU on a 24-hour average not later than January 1, 2014. 
EPA further proposes that the same requirements for monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting as described in New York's final Title V 
permit be required to comply with EPA's proposed BART emission limit 
for SO<INF>2</INF>.
    In summary, EPA is proposing partial approval and partial 
disapproval of New York's BART determinations for Boilers 1 and 2 at 
Dynegy's Roseton Generating Station. EPA is proposing to approve New 
York's BART determination for NO<INF>X</INF> and PM because it was 
conducted in a manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. EPA is 
proposing to disapprove New York's BART determination for 
SO<INF>2</INF> because, as discussed above, a different control 
strategy as proposed by EPA, will result in improved visibility that is 
cost effective over what New York and Dynegy are proposing for BART.

Dynegy--Danskammer Generating Station

    Dynegy Northeast Generation Inc. owns and is permitted to operate a 
235 megawatt electrical generating unit at its Danskammer Generating 
Station in Orange County, in the city of Newburgh. New York has 
determined that Boiler Unit 4 (Emission Unit U-D0004) is a BART 
eligible unit. Boiler 4 is a tangentially coal-fired steam generating 
boiler and is capable of firing coal, No. 6 fuel oil and natural gas, 
with coal as the primary fuel. Boiler 4 has a heat input rating of 
2,512 mmBTU/hr when burning coal, 2,004 mmBTU/hr when combusting No. 6 
fuel oil and 2,397 mmBTU/hr when firing natural gas. Boiler 4 has 
existing NO<INF>X</INF> emission controls of low excess air, combustion 
air manipulation, separated overfire air, burners out of service, and 
low NO<INF>X</INF> burners; PM emissions are controlled with an 
existing cold side electrostatic precipitator; and SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions are controlled through limitations on the sulfur content 
(0.7%) of coal.
    Dynegy submitted a BART determination (with 2,512 mmBTU per hour 
while burning coal as the base case) to New York and the State agreed 
with the owner's recommendations. On November 2, 2011, New York 
proposed the Title V permit modification to incorporate Dynegy's BART 
determinations into their permit and to provide for public comment. New 
York has not yet issued this permit modification as final. For control 
of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is proposing that BART for Boiler 
4 is the lowering of the current SO<INF>2</INF> permit limit from 1.10 
lbs/mmBTU to 0.50 lbs/mmBTU, resulting in an emission reduction of 
6,602 tons per year, or 55%. Dynegy's five factor BART analysis 
evaluated thirteen SO<INF>2</INF> control options including, Flue Gas 
Desulfurization options with Lime Based Spray Dryer; Circulating Dry 
Scrubber and Wet Limestone; Dry Sorbent Injection of Trona options; 
combustion of alternative coals; 100% combustion of natural gas; co-
firing natural gas; and a 0.5 lbs/mmBTU emission limit on a 24-hour 
basis.
    Dynegy determined the annualized costs and the annualized control 
costs per ton of emission reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> (based on 100% 
capacity factor) for each BART control option. All of the BART controls 
were shown to be cost effective according to New York's guidance, at or 
below $5,500 per ton. The annualized costs were in the range of $20 to 
30 million for flue gas desulfurization options, $2 to 3 million for 
dry sorbent injection options, $8 to 25 million for gas firing options, 
and $7 to 46 million for alternative coal options. The annualized costs 
for complying with a 0.5 lb/mmBTU emission limit, New York's proposed 
BART determination emission limit, are $11 million with a cost 
effectiveness of $1,683 per ton.
    According to Dynegy's analysis, the flue gas desulfurization and 
dry sorbent injection control options all have energy and adverse non-
air quality environmental impacts, including solid waste disposal 
issues. Wet limestone FGD creates a waste water stream that requires 
additional treatment prior to release into the water system. The gas 
firing options could be susceptible to price volatility and limited 
supply, creating an adverse impact on electric grid reliability, which 
may also have non-air quality environmental impacts.
    Visibility impacts were modeled for selected BART control options. 
For FGD for example, maximum predicted visibility improvement of 4.749 
deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 2.174 deciviews would occur 
at the nearby seven Class I areas. For gas co-firing at 60% for 
example, maximum visibility improvement of 4.364 deciviews and eighth 
highest improvement of 1.522 deciviews would occur. Complying with New 
York's proposed 0.50 lb/mmBTU BART emission limit was predicted to 
result in a 2.759 maximum deciview improvement and a 1.015 eighth 
highest deciview improvement.
    Dynegy concluded that:
    <bullet> Although the FGD options are cost-effective, have high 
control efficiencies, and would result in visibility improvements, 
there are many non-air quality environmental concerns and these 
controls would yield additional power requirements.
    <bullet> While dry sorbent injection options are also cost-
effective, they have lower control efficiencies, non-air quality 
environmental concerns, and result in less visibility improvement than 
the 0.50 lb/mmBTU emission limit option.
    <bullet> Although gas co-firing (and 100% gas firing) appears to be 
feasible and cost effective, it was ruled out as a control option due 
to high price volatility of natural gas and potential reliability 
concerns on the state's electric system due to limited supply of 
natural gas, particularly during the winter.
    <bullet> Alternative coal options were also ruled out due to lower 
heating content, which would require more coal to be shipped and result 
in more solid waste products.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York is proposing that 
BART for Boiler 4 is the lowering of the current NO<INF>X</INF> permit 
limit from 0.42 lbs/mmBTU to 0.12 lbs/mmBTU, resulting in an emission 
reduction of 3,300 tons per year, or 71%. Dynegy's BART analysis 
considered nineteen control technologies, including Selective Catalytic 
Reduction; Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction; hybrid SNCR/SCR system; 
SNCR Trim; Gas Reburn; Flue gas recirculation options; combustion of 
alternative coals; 100% combustion of natural gas; co-firing natural 
gas; and a 0.12 lbs/mmBTU emission limit.
    Dynegy determined the annualized costs and the annualized control 
costs per ton of emission reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> (based on 100% 
capacity factor) for each BART control option. The annualized costs 
were $12 million for SCR, $66 million for SNCR, $9 million for the 
hybrid SCR/SNCR, $56 million for SNCR Trim, in the range of $7 to 46 
million for alternative coal options, in the range of $8 to $25 million 
for gas firing options, and $348,655 to $9 million for flue gas 
recirculation options.
    The following BART controls were shown to be cost effective 
according to

[[Page 24813]]

New York's guidance, at or below $5,500 per ton: SCR, Hybrid SCR/SNCR, 
Alternative Chinese Coal, and the FGR options. Dynegy determined SCR 
and the Hybrid SCR/SNCR option to be technically infeasible due to the 
ammonia handling issues and other non-air quality environmental 
impacts. The gas firing options could be susceptible to price 
volatility and limited supply, creating an adverse impact on electric 
grid reliability, which may also have non-air quality environmental 
impacts. Alternative coal options were also ruled out due to lower 
heating content, which would require more coal to be shipped and result 
in more solid waste products. FGR options were not necessarily ruled 
out, but they had minimal visibility improvement and the proposed 0.12 
lbs/mmBTU BART emission limit compliance option was more effective in 
reducing emissions than the other cost-effective options.
    Visibility impacts were modeled for selected BART control options. 
For the Hybrid SCR/SNCR option, maximum predicted visibility 
improvement of 2.244 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 0.689 
would occur at all of the Class I area. For FGR, maximum visibility 
improvement of 0.215 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 0.084 
would occur. For FGR and SCR, maximum visibility improvement of 2.477 
deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 0.651 deciviews would 
occur. For gas firing at 100% at 0.08 lbs/mmBTU, maximum visibility 
improvement of 8.577 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 2.896 
deciviews would occur. Complying with a 0.12 lb/mmBTU emission limit 
was predicted to result in a 1.943 maximum deciview improvement and a 
0.569 eighth highest deciview improvement.
    Dynegy concluded that:
    <bullet> SCR and Hybrid SCR/SNCR while cost-effective were not 
technically feasible due to several non-air quality environmental 
concerns. Hybrid SCR/SNCR also had minimal visibility improvement.
    <bullet> SNCR was ruled out as not cost-effective and also 
presented many non-air quality environmental concerns.
    <bullet> Alternative coal options were also ruled out due to lower 
heating content, which would require more coal to be shipped and result 
in more solid waste products.
    <bullet> Other gas co-firing options and 100% gas firing appears 
not to be cost-effective, and were ruled out as a control option due to 
high price volatility of natural gas and potential reliability concerns 
on the state's electric system due to limited supply of natural gas, 
particularly during the winter.
    <bullet> While FGR options were not necessarily ruled out, they had 
minimal visibility improvement and the proposed 0.12 lbs/mmBTU BART 
emission limit compliance option was more effective in reducing 
emissions than the other cost-effective options.
    Therefore, New York proposes for the control of NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions, BART for Boiler 4 is the lowering of the current 
NO<INF>X</INF> permit limit from 0.42 lbs/mmBTU to 0.12 lbs/mmBTU. This 
BART control option is based on optimizing the existing low 
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, co-firing with natural gas, installation of 
post combustion controls, use of alternative coals, or any combination 
thereof. The proposed NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit is 0.12 lbs/mmBTU 
(24-hour average during ozone seasons, 30-day average during non-ozone 
seasons).
    For the control of PM emissions, Danskammer Unit 4 currently has a 
cold side electrostatic precipitator (ESP). This ESP achieved an 
average 99.98% control efficiency in recent stack tests and is a state-
of-the-art technology for PM control for Danskammer Unit 4. Other 
control technologies such as a mechanical collector, baghouse, or wet 
particulate scrubbers could be considered as additional feasible PM 
control options. According to Dynegy's analysis, a search of available 
control technology research and industry knowledge, any other commonly 
applied PM control, such as fabric filter or wet scrubber, would be 
expected to achieve a maximum control efficiency of up to 99% and an 
average control efficiency of 95%. Therefore, New York proposes the 
existing ESP to represent the maximum control for BART for Danskammer 
Unit 4, and completion of the five-step BART process, including 
visibility modeling, is not required. The proposed BART PM emission 
rate is 0.060 lbs/mmBTU.
    The reader is referred to the following table for Unit 4 that 
summarizes this discussion as taken directly or derived from Dynegy's 
BART analysis.

                                                                  Table 6--Danskammer Unit 4 (235 MW)--Summary BART Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Possible
                                                                         Control        Emission Rate         Cost           Visibility                                            New York's
                                 Source and size      Baseline        Technology of       with this     Effectiveness ($/  Improvement (7     Cost (mm$/dv)        Current        proposed BART
                                                   Emissions (tpy)      Interest        control (lb/          ton)         Class I areas)     Max/8th high        Controls        Determination
                                                                     (partial list)    mmBTU or other)                     max/8th high DV
                                A...............  B...............  C...............  D...............  E...............  F...............  G...............  H...............  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2...........................  Unit 4, coal-     12,103 tpy......  Lime-Based Spray  1029 tpy; 234.9   1840............  4.749 max.......  4.29 max........  None. Currently   0.50 lb/mmBtu.
                                 fired boiler                        Dryer FGD with    lb/hr.           2072............  2.174 high 8....  9.37 high 8.....   uses 0.7%
                                 235 MW. Can                         Baghouse 91.5%   0.09 lb/mmBtu...                    4.364 max.......  3.5 max.........   sulfur coal.
                                 burn coal, oil,                     control          4712 tpy........                    1.522 high 8....  10.0 high 8.....
                                 gas.                                efficiency.      1075.8 lb/hr....
                                                                    Gas Cofiring 60%  0.43 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    59.97% control
                                                                     efficiency.
                                                                    0.50 lb/mmBtu...  5501 tpy........  1683............  2.759 max.......  4.02 max
                                                                    55% control       1256 lb/hr......  ................  1.015 high 8....  10.9 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.50 lb/mmBtu...
NOX...........................  ................  4621 tpy........  SCR ~ 83%         786 tpy.........  3151............  Not provided....  Not provided....  low excess air,   0.12 lb/mmBTU.
                                                                     control          3004 tpy........  41345...........  Not provided....  Not provided....   OFA, BOOS, LNBs.
                                                                     efficiency.
                                                                    SNCR ~ 35%
                                                                     control
                                                                     efficiency.

[[Page 24814]]

 
                                                                    Hybrid SCR/SNCR.  1848 tpy........  3353............  2.244 max.......  4.1 max
                                                                    60% control       422 lb/hr.......                    0.689 high 8....  13.5 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.17 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    Alternative coal  2773 to 3656 tpy  4509 to 47753...  Not provided....  Not provided.
                                                                     options.
                                                                    Gas firing 100%.  880 tpy.........  6824............  8.577 max.......  2.98 max
                                                                    81% control       201 lb/hr.......                    2.896 high 8....  8.81 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.08 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    FGR.............  4251 tpy........  943.............  0.215 max.......  1.62 max
                                                                    8% control        970.6 lb/hr.....  ................  0.084 high 8....  4.15 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.39 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    FGR + SCR.......  4216.5 tpy......  2012............  2.477 max.......  3.42 max
                                                                    91% control       962.7 lb/hr.....  ................  0.651 high 8....  12.99 high 8....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.38 lb/mmBtu...
                                                                    0.12 lb/MMBtu...  1320 tpy........  6088............  1.943 max.......  10.3 max
                                                                    ~71% control      301.4 lb/hr.....  ................  0.569 high 8....  35.3 high 8.....
                                                                     efficiency.      0.12 lb/mmBtu...
PM............................  ................  660 tpy.........  N.A.............  N.A.............  N.A.............  N.A.............  N.A.............  ESP.............  0.06 lb/mmBtu
                                                                                                                                                              99.98% efficient  Existing control
                                                                                                                                                                                 is max control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing partial approval and partial disapproval of New 
York's proposed BART determinations for Unit 4 at Dynegy's Danskammer 
Generation Station. EPA is proposing to approve New York's proposed 
NO<INF>X</INF> BART emission limit of 0.12 lb/mmBTU and proposed PM 
BART emission limit of 0.06 lb/mmBTU. EPA is proposing to disapprove a 
portion of New York's proposed BART determination for Danskammer Unit 4 
with respect to SO<INF>2</INF> emissions because other BART control 
options as presented by Dynegy are also technically feasible, cost-
effective and provide additional visibility improvement.
    In its proposed BART determination, New York and Dynegy considered 
several SO<INF>2</INF> control technology options including Flue Gas 
Desulfurization, combustion of alternative coals, and combusting 
different percentages of natural gas. New York and Dynegy proposed that 
the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit of 0.5 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average 
is BART, and that this emission limit will be achieved through some 
post combustion control, switching of fuels or a combination of these 
or other options. The result of our own evaluation of Dynegy's analysis 
is that these same control option strategies can achieve a more 
stringent SO<INF>2</INF> emission limit than the 0.5 lb/mmBTU limit, on 
a more cost-effective basis, and therefore result in more visibility 
improvement. Based on the information contained in Dynegy's BART 
analysis, and specifically on the emission rate information (also 
summarized in Table 6), EPA is proposing to establish an SO<INF>2</INF> 
BART emission limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average. Our proposed 
disapproval is based in large part on Dynegy's own BART analysis, 
showing that FGD controls and/or combusting natural gas are cost 
effective and would result in enough incremental visibility improvement 
at a single Class I area to justify the incremental cost of the control 
strategies.
    In addition, the results of our own analysis of the visibility 
improvement differ from Dynegy's analysis in that Dynegy's proposed 
BART determination appears to be based on the highest visibility 
improvements that may occur at only one of the seven Class I areas that 
could be impacted. In making BART determinations, EPA also recommends 
the consideration of cumulative impacts and improvements that could 
occur at all of the Class I areas a particular facility might impact. 
EPA's analysis of the cumulative visibility improvements at all 7 Class 
I areas justifies a more stringent BART emission limit. While our 
analysis differs from Dynegy's analysis and New York's proposed BART 
determination in this respect, we concur with the other portions of the 
analysis regarding achievable emission reductions and cost-
effectiveness.
    Since New York's proposed BART determination and permit 
modification has not been issued as final, there is the possibility 
that additional information may be provided for New York to evaluate 
which may influence New York to consider other options for BART. 
Likewise, additional information may be provided to further support New 
York's proposed BART determination. EPA is aware that New York has 
received comments from the public on the proposed BART permit 
modification. Therefore EPA is similarly providing for the possibility 
that New York may consider other options for BART before issuing a 
final BART permit.
    While EPA is proposing to disapprove New York's proposed 
SO<INF>2</INF> BART determination for Danskammer Unit 4, EPA is also 
proposing two options for the SO<INF>2</INF> BART FIP for Danskammer. 
(Because we are proposing to disapprove this provision of the SIP, we 
are concurrently proposing a FIP.) Based on the discussion in this 
section, our FIP proposes promulgating two options for an 
SO<INF>2</INF> BART emissions limit for Danskammer Unit 4:
    Option 1: EPA proposes to approve New York's proposed 
SO<INF>2</INF> BART emission limit of 0.50 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour 
average in the event additional information is submitted to support 
this emission limit.
    Option 2: EPA proposes to establish an SO<INF>2</INF> BART emission 
limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour average.
    EPA is requesting comment on these two options in order to provide 
for the opportunity for submittal of additional

[[Page 24815]]

documentation or information that might be considered by EPA to approve 
either of the two options as BART.
    In summary, we are proposing to approve New York's proposed 
determination for NO<INF>X</INF> and PM BART for Danskammer Unit 4. We 
are proposing to disapprove New York's proposed SO<INF>2</INF> BART 
determination for Danskammer Unit 4 to meet an emission limit of 0.5 
lb/mmBTU. Because we are proposing to disapprove this provision of the 
SIP, we are concurrently proposing a FIP. Our FIP proposes promulgating 
two options for an SO<INF>2</INF> BART emissions limit for Danskammer 
Unit 4. For option 1 we propose to approve New York's proposed 
SO<INF>2</INF> BART emission limit of 0.50 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour 
average in the event additional information is submitted to support 
this emission limit. For option 2 we propose to establish an 
SO<INF>2</INF> BART emission limit of 0.09 lb/mmBTU on a 24-hour 
average.
    The aforementioned BART requirements proposed by New York for Unit 
4 are included in New York's proposed Title V permit, which also 
includes requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting and 
includes a compliance date of January 1, 2014. EPA expects New York 
will issue a final BART determination and submit the permit as a SIP 
revision for EPA approval. If EPA is able to approve the BART 
determination, then the permit requirements for the boiler become 
federally enforceable. Should New York not submit the final Title V 
permit for Boilers 4 in a timely manner, or adequately demonstrate that 
the proposed BART determination is BART, EPA proposes that the 
aforementioned BART requirements be considered as federal requirements 
as part of a FIP.

GenOn (Mirant)--Bowline Generating Station

    This facility, owned and permitted to GenOn Bowline LLC, operates 
two very large boilers, Boilers 1 and 2, as well as an emergency 
generator at its Bowline Generating Station located in the town of 
Haverstraw, Rockland County. New York has determined that Boiler 1 
(Emission Unit 1-00001; Emission source 00UN1) and 2 (Emission Unit 1-
00002; Emission source 00UN2) are BART eligible units. Boilers 1 and 2 
are nearly identical in size (rated maximum heat input of 5546 and 5374 
mm BTU/hr, respectively) and each has a nominal electric generating 
capacity of 570 MW. Boiler 1 is a tangentially-fired boiler that can 
fire either natural gas or No. 6 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content 
of 0.37%. In 2009, Boiler 1 operated only 568 hours (6.5% of the year) 
during which time No. 6 fuel oil was combusted for 95 hours (or 17% of 
operating hours). Boiler 2 is an opposed wall-fired boiler that 
combusts the same fuels as Boiler 1. In 2009, Boiler 2 operated for 
only 187 hours (2.1% of the year) during which time No. 6 fuel oil was 
combusted for 24 hours (or 13% of operating hours). New York indicates 
that both boilers operate very infrequently and are essentially 
``peaking'' units under current and expected future operations. New 
York and NRG took these operational characteristics into account in 
their BART analysis.
    GenOn (Mirant) submitted a BART determination to New York and the 
State agreed with the owner's recommendations. For control of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is proposing that the current fuel 
oil sulfur limit of 0.37% (maximum, not to be exceeded at any time) 
represents BART for Boilers 1 and 2. This fuel oil sulfur limit is 
proposed for BART in New York's draft Title V permit. GenOn's 
(Mirant's) five factor BART analysis evaluated three SO<INF>2</INF> 
control options, including wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD), spray 
dryer absorber, and dry sorbent injection. Only wet FGD was determined 
to be technically feasible however not cost effectiveness due to the 
low operating hours and low sulfur fuel oil.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York reviewed GenOn's 
(Mirant's) BART analysis that considered a broad spectrum of control 
options including combustion controls, post-combustion controls 
(including SCR and SNCR), and combinations of controls and the State 
concluded that none of the technically feasible control options are 
economically feasible. New York concluded that BART is the continued 
use of existing NO<INF>X</INF> controls and the State's draft Title V 
permit requires the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for Boilers 1 and 2 each 
be limited to 0.15 lb/mm BTU (24-hour average during the ozone season 
and 30 day rolling average during the non-ozone season). The existing 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls include off-stoichiometric firing for both 
boilers and additional controls for Boiler 2 including overfire air 
(OFA) and windbox flue gas recirculation (FGR).
    For control of PM emissions, New York reviewed GenOn's (Mirant's) 
BART analysis that considered combustion controls, fabric filter, wet 
electrostatic precipitator, and wet scrubbing. GenOn (Mirant) and New 
York determined that additional combustion controls and fabric filters 
are technically infeasible; wet scrubbing is less efficient than ESPs 
and fabric filters; and wet ESP is technically feasible but not 
economically feasible. GenOn (Mirant) and New York note that the 
visibility impacts of PM emissions for Boilers 1 and 2 are relatively 
low in that PM contributes less than 10% of the total visibility impact 
on Class I areas for each case modeled. New York concluded that no 
further control is required as BART for PM. New York's draft Title V 
permit proposes that current PM emission limit of 0.10 lb/mm BTU for 
Boilers 1 and 2 represents BART.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boilers 1 and 2 are 
included in New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting and includes a compliance date 
of January 1, 2014. New York expects to finalize the draft Title V 
permit and to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-2012.

Alcoa, Inc--Alcoa Massena Operations (West Plant)

    This aluminum production facility, owned by and permitted to Alcoa 
Inc, operates an Aluminum Production Cell (Potline), two Anode Baking 
Furnaces, Four Packaged Boilers and various other processing units at 
its Massena Operations (West Plant) in St. Lawrence County, in the city 
of Massena. New York has determined that the Potline (Emission Unit S-
00001; Emission Source SS198), Anode Baking Furnaces (Emission Unit S-
00002; Emission Source SS78) and four Package Boilers (Emission Unit B-
00001; Emission Sources B0001 through B0004) are BART eligible units. 
Alcoa submitted a BART analysis to New York and the State agreed with 
the owner's recommendations. The following describes the State's BART 
determination for each BART eligible unit.

A. Potline

    Aluminum metal is produced by electrolytic reduction of alumina in 
these shallow rectangular cells, or ``pots.'' There is no combustion of 
any fuels for this unit. Carbon electrodes extending into the pots 
serve as the anodes and carbon lining of the cells as the cathode. The 
carbon anodes, which contain sulfur impurities, are continuously 
depleted during the electrolytic reduction of the alumina and 
SO<INF>2</INF> is emitted during this process as the anodes are 
depleted. The current Potline control device is a dry alumina injection 
system followed by a fabric filter to control fluoride emissions; the 
system has 98% capture efficiency and a PM collection efficiency of 
greater than 95%.

[[Page 24816]]

    For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is proposing that 
BART for the Potline is limiting the sulfur content of the coke raw 
material used to produce anodes to 2.5%, which is the limit included in 
New York's Air State Facility permit that was issued final on March 20, 
2012. Alcoa's BART analysis evaluated two types of wet flue gas 
desulfurization systems but it was determined that both are not 
economically feasible. In addition, Alcoa determined that any 
visibility improvement from reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions would 
be minimal. As a result of this BART analysis, Alcoa concluded, and New 
York agreed, that BART for the Potlines is limiting the sulfur content 
of the anodes to not more than 2.5% determined on an annual average 
rolled monthly.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, Alcoa determined, and New 
York agreed, that there are no technically feasible controls that 
represent BART. Alcoa evaluated two add-on controls, including SCR and 
SNCR, but these were determined to be technically infeasible due to the 
low temperatures of the exhaust gas. All combustion modification 
techniques were eliminated from a BART analysis because there are no 
conventional burners or combustion points in the Potline operation. New 
York's final Air State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 50 TPY 
NO<INF>X</INF>.
    For control of PM emissions, Alcoa determined, and New York agreed, 
that the existing dry alumina injection system and fabric filter 
represents BART for the Potline. Alcoa points out that PM emissions 
represent only about 1.5% of the total facility visibility impact which 
is 0.83 dv. New York's final Air State Facility permit includes a BART 
limit of 168 TPY PM-10.

B. Anode Baking Furnaces

    Anodes used in the Potline are manufactured in an on-site 
production plant. Coke, containing sulfur impurities, is used in the 
production of the anodes. Alcoa has two anode baking furnaces that are 
commonly controlled by a single dry alumina injection system and a 
pulse jet fabric filter which has a control efficiency greater than 
95%. These furnaces are fueled with natural gas.
    For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is proposing that 
BART for these two furnaces is limiting the sulfur content of the anode 
coke to 2.5%, which is the limit included in New York's final Air State 
Facility permit. Alcoa's BART analysis evaluated wet flue gas 
desulfurization system but it was determined that it is not 
economically feasible. As a result of this BART analysis, Alcoa 
concluded, and New York agreed, that BART for the Anode Baking Furnaces 
is limiting the sulfur content of the anode coke to not more than 2.5% 
determined on an annual average rolled monthly.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, Alcoa determined, and New 
York agreed, that there are no technically feasible controls that 
represent BART. Alcoa evaluated two add-on controls, including SCR and 
SNCR, but these were determined to be technically infeasible due to the 
low temperatures of the exhaust gas. Combustion modification techniques 
were also determined to be not technically feasible. New York's final 
Air State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 203 tpy 
NO<INF>X</INF>.
    For control of PM emissions, Alco determined, and New York agreed, 
that the existing dry alumina injection system with a pulse jet fabric 
filter satisfies BART for the Anode Baking Furnaces. New York's final 
Air State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 24 TPY PM-10.

C. Four Package Boilers

    These four units are virtually identical boilers fired by either 
natural gas or oil. Each boiler has one wall-fired burner which has a 
maximum rated heat capacity of 200 mm BTU/hr for natural gas and 
approximately 200 mm BTU/hr for No. 6 fuel oil using atomized steam. 
Current NO<INF>X</INF> controls include low NO<INF>X</INF> burners 
(LNB) and flue gas recirculation (FGR).
    For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is proposing that 
BART is limiting the sulfur content of the fuel oil to 1.5% which is 
the limit included in the State's final Air State Facility permit. 
Alcoa's BART analysis evaluated the cost of fuel oil with sulfur 
content from 1.5% down to 0.5% and determined that it was not 
economically feasible to purchase fuel oil with sulfur content lower 
than 1.5%. As indicated above for the Dynegy Roseton BART analysis, New 
York plans to propose this year revisions to it sulfur in fuel 
regulation, Part 225, by limiting the sulfur content of residual oil to 
0.50% to be effective within a few years. New York indicated that 
recent (2011) deliveries to the plant had fuel oil sulfur content in 
the range of 0.60 to 0.90%. Alcoa's BART analysis indicates that sulfur 
emissions from the boilers contribute a visibility impact of only about 
0.18 dv. As a result of this BART analysis, Alcoa concluded, and New 
York agreed, that BART for these four boilers is limiting the sulfur 
content of the fuel oil to not more than 1.5% for any fuel delivery.
    For control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, Alcoa determined, and New 
York agreed, that the current control technologies (LNB and FGR) and 
current permitted emission limit represents BART. Alcoa evaluated other 
control options, including SCR and SNCR, but these were determined to 
be economically infeasible. New York took into consideration that 
recent testing indicates that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are reported to 
be 0.08 lb/mm BTU for gas and 0.27 lb/mm BTU for oil. New York's final 
State Facility permit includes a BART limit of 0.30 lb/mm BTU 
NO<INF>X</INF>.
    For control of PM emissions, Alco determined, and New York agreed, 
that the current permit emission limit represents BART. New York 
indicates that compliance tests conducted in March 2006 show measured 
total particulate emissions of 0.045 lb/mm BTU when firing No. 6 fuel 
oil.
    Additionally, Alcoa's BART analysis indicated that PM emissions 
from the boilers have a small impact on visibility. Consequently, New 
York's final State Facility permit includes a PM-10 BART limit of 0.10 
lb/mm BTU.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for the Potline, Anode Baking 
Furnaces and four Package Boilers are included in New York's final (on 
March 20, 2012) Air State Facility permit including requirements for 
monitoring, record keeping and reporting and includes a compliance date 
of January 1, 2014. New York expects to submit the permit as a SIP 
revision for EPA approval by mid-2012.

Lehigh Northeast Cement Company

    This facility, owned by and permitted to Lehigh Northeast Cement 
Company, operates a rotary kiln and associated clinker cooler as part 
of this Portland cement manufacturing operation, and associated quarry, 
located at Glens Falls, Warren County. New York has determined that the 
rotary kiln (Emission Unit: 0-UKILN) and the associated clinker cooler 
are BART eligible units. Lehigh submitted a BART analysis to New York 
and the State agreed with the owner's recommendations. The following 
describes the State's BART determination for each of the BART eligible 
units.

A. Rotary Kiln

    This unit is a short, dry preheater kiln rated at 160 tons per 
hour. Coal is the primary fuel used in the kiln, with natural gas used 
as a startup or backup fuel. Currently, PM emissions from the kiln are 
controlled by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and a lime slurry 
system is used for detached plume abatement and for SO<INF>2</INF> 
control.

[[Page 24817]]

    For control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, New York is proposing that 
current operations represent BART. The rotary kiln currently reduces 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions through an inherent dry scrubbing (IDS) 
process which entails the operation of a raw mill that is part of the 
kiln operation. The raw mill typically operates as part of the kiln 
operation for about 80% of the time and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
the kiln are reduced to about 20 ppm (typically) whenever the raw mill 
is operated. New York indicates that SO<INF>2</INF> reduction from the 
kiln is approximately 85% when the raw mill is in operation. When the 
raw mill is not operating, Lehigh currently employs a lime spray drying 
system to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and for purposes of abatement 
of an ammonium sulfate plume (detached plume abatement). This lime 
spray drying system typically achieves up to 74% SO<INF>2</INF> 
reduction\19\ during periods when the raw mill is not operating. 
Lehigh's BART analysis evaluated four other SO<INF>2</INF> control 
options including fuel substitution, raw material substitution, dry 
lime injection and wet lime scrubbing (WLS) and Lehigh determined, and 
New York agreed, that the evaluated control options are either not cost 
effective (WLS), not technically feasible (upgrade the existing lime 
spray dryer), have no appreciable improvement in SO<INF>2</INF> 
reduction over the existing system or have no appreciable improvement 
in visibility (WLS and lime spray dryer upgrade). New York's Title V 
permit was issued final on February 28, 2012 and includes the following 
currently effective SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits for the rotary kiln: 
(1) 5.0 lbs/mm BTU of fuel measured on a daily basis; and (2) 3.8 lb/mm 
BTU of fuel measured on a monthly rolled 3 month calendar basis; and 
(3) 3.4 lb/mm BTU of fuel on a monthly rolled 12 calendar month period. 
The Title V permit states that the SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits 
become effective upon Lehigh's certification of a future SO<INF>2</INF> 
CEMS to be located on the rotary kiln exhaust stack(s). Until the 
SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS system is certified, the sulfur limits in the coal 
fired in the rotary kiln are enforceable by the State. The Title V 
permit includes the following currently effective limits on the sulfur 
content of the coal fired in the kiln: (1) 2.5 lb/mm BTU maximum at any 
time; (2) 1.9 lb/mm BTU on a 90-day average; and (3) 1.7 lb/mm BTU 
annual maximum rolled monthly. New York's Title V permit indicates that 
the sulfur limits in the coal will expire once Lehigh has certified 
successful operation of the SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS. However, New York has 
clarified to EPA that the installation of SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS is 
optional and not a permit requirement. It should also be noted that 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions also result from sulfur in the raw materials 
fed to the kiln. Although the permitted SO<INF>2</INF> emissions seem 
high, EPA expects that actual emissions from the kiln will be much 
lower given that Lehigh states in its BART analysis that SO<INF>2</INF> 
reductions with the raw mill in operation is about 85%; and is about 
74% when the lime slurry system becomes operational as the raw mill 
stops operating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Lehigh's BART analysis states (p3-5) that the designer of 
the lime spray drying system indicates that this system is 
adequately sized and sufficient to control SO<INF>2</INF> to 125 
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, New York is proposing 
that BART for the rotary kiln is the installation of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology. Lehigh's BART analysis evaluated 
five potential NO<INF>X</INF> control technologies, including SCR and 
SNCR, and concluded that only two control technologies are technically 
feasible, i.e., SNCR and low NOx burners (LNB). Lehigh concluded that 
SNCR technology is cost effective ($1,145/ton NO<INF>X</INF> removed) 
and results in greater reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the 
rotary kiln than LNB and therefore SNCR is considered BART. The SNCR 
manufacturer provides a guarantee NO<INF>X</INF> removal of 50%. New 
York's final Title V permit establishes a BART NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
limit of 2.88 lb/ton clinker produced with a compliance date of January 
1, 2014.
    For control of PM emissions, Lehigh determined, and New York 
agreed, that the removal and replacement of the existing ESP with a 
fabric filter to meet the requirements of EPA's Portland cement MACT 
(40 CFR part 63, Subpart LLL) also represents BART. Lehigh's BART 
analysis for PM evaluated four potential control options including ESP, 
fabric filter, cyclones and a wet scrubber. The wet scrubber was deemed 
technically infeasible for a cement plant for PM control. Although the 
fabric filter was deemed the most effective PM control technology, 
Lehigh determined it to be not cost effective for BART but committed to 
replace the existing ESP with a fabric filter to comply with EPA's 
Portland cement MACT. New York's final Title V permit requires that PM 
emissions from the rotary kiln meet a limit of 0.30 lb/ton feed. 
Additional PM reductions are expected to occur in the future as 
required to meet the new Portland Cement MACT standards, since the PM 
limit promulgated in the Portland Cement MACT standard for existing 
cement kilns is 0.04 lb/ton clinker.

B. Clinker Cooler

    The clinker cooler is a portion of the kiln processing system. When 
the clinker has been fully formed in the kiln, it is conveyed to the 
clinker cooler, which consists of a series of grates over which the 
clinker travels and is exposed to forced ambient air for cooling. 
Hence, only PM is emitted from the clinker cooler. The current PM 
control on the clinker cooler is a baghouse. Lehigh proposed, and New 
York agreed, that the existing baghouse represents BART for the clinker 
cooler. Because the unit is required to meet the Portland Cement MACT 
standard for clinker coolers, Lehigh contends that the compliance with 
the applicable PM emission limits in the Portland Cement MACT rule and 
the use of the existing baghouse represents BART. Lehigh did not 
evaluate other technologies since there are no other new technologies 
subsequent to the MACT standard. New York's final Title V permit 
requires that PM emissions from the clinker cooler meet a BART limit of 
0.10 lb/ton feed. Additional PM reductions are expected to occur in the 
future as required to meet the new Portland Cement MACT standards, 
since the PM limit promulgated in the Portland Cement MACT standard for 
an existing clinker cooler is 0.04 lb/ton clinker.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for the rotary kiln and 
associated clinker cooler are included in New York's final (on February 
28, 2012) Title V permit including requirements for monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting and includes a compliance date of January 
1, 2014. New York expects to submit the final Title V permit as a SIP 
revision for EPA approval by mid-2012. Once the SIP revision is 
approved by EPA, the BART requirements for the kiln and clinker cooler 
become federally enforceable. Should New York not submit the final 
Title V permit for the kiln and clinker cooler in a timely manner, EPA 
proposes that the aforementioned BART requirements be considered as 
federal requirements as part of a FIP. Should the existing final Title 
V permit be revised under New York's permitting procedures, New York 
must submit any revisions to EPA as a SIP revision for the purpose of 
complying with BART.

Kodak--Eastman Business Park

    This facility, owned by and permitted to Eastman Kodak Co, operates 
three very large boilers, Boiler 41 (Emission Unit U-00015; Emission 
Source 321AG), Boiler 42 (Emission Unit U-00015; Emission Source 
321AH), Boiler 43 (Emission Unit U-00015; Emission

[[Page 24818]]

Source 321AI) as well as one other large boiler, four package boilers, 
and miscellaneous small units at its Eastman Business Park in Monroe 
County, in the city of Rochester. New York has determined that Boilers 
41, 42 and 43 as well as the four package boilers and the miscellaneous 
small (non-boiler) units are BART eligible units. The most significant 
BART eligible units (based upon emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and PM) are Boilers 41, 42 and 43. The remaining BART 
eligible units have smaller emissions than Boilers 41-43 and the 
visibility impacts are small. Each of the three large BART eligible 
boiler units are used for generating steam and electricity for the 
Kodak facility. Each of the three units are cyclone type boilers that 
combust bituminous coal with a maximum sulfur content of 2.5%. The 
boilers are also capable of combusting Number 6 fuel oil with up to 
1.5% sulfur content. Each of the three boiler units are equipped with 
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) to control PM emissions and natural 
gas reburn to control emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>. 
Kodak submitted a BART determination to New York and the State agreed 
with the owner's recommendations.

A. Boilers 41, 42, 43

    Kodak provided a five factor BART analysis dated September 29, 2010 
and a supplemental five factor analysis dated October 11, 2012. Kodak 
concluded that BART for these three boilers are as follows: (1) Boiler 
41 is to be permanently retired; (2) Boiler 42 will either permanently 
retire or repower with natural gas; and (3) Boiler 43 will meet current 
permit emission limits, given the likelihood that Boiler 43 will 
install emission control equipment, as required, to comply with EPA's 
Boiler MACT rule. Typical controls to meet Boiler MACT requirements may 
be the installation of a dry lime injection system for acid gas (e.g., 
hydrogen chloride) and a fabric filter for PM control. A lime injection 
system designed for acid gas removal will also typically reduce 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Since EPA is currently reconsidering the 
Boiler MACT rule,\20\ it is uncertain what the MACT compliance date and 
emission limits will be. Therefore New York proposes in its draft Title 
V permit, issued for public comment on April 4, 2012, that the final 
BART requirements and compliance dates are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers 
and Process Heaters,'' published March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). Also 
referred to as 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD. This rule is in effect 
but under reconsideration. EPA plans to issue a revised Boiler MACT 
rule in the spring of 2012. On February 7, 2012, EPA notified owners 
of affected sources that the agency would not take enforcement 
action for violations of notification requirements for the Major 
Source Boiler rule issued in March 2011.

--(1) Boiler 41 is to permanently retire by December 31, 2013; and
--(2) Boiler 42 is to either permanently retire or repower by the 
Boiler MACT compliance date but not later than August 16, 2017. New 
York's draft Title V permit does not include any emission limits and
--(3) for Boiler 43, New York's draft Title V permit reiterates the 
following current emission limits as BART: (a) SO<INF>2</INF>: Fuel 
sulfur limits for coal at 2.5% and for oil at 1.5%; (b) NO<INF>X</INF>: 
0.60 lb/mm BTU; (c) PM: 0.24 lb/mm BTU when combusting coal and 0.10 
lb/mm BTU when combusting fuel oil.

    EPA has reviewed New York's draft Title V permit and in a letter 
dated April 11, 2012, EPA states that the agency agrees with the 
permit's BART requirements except that an emission limit for 
NO<INF>X</INF> is required for Boiler 42 should Kodak decide to repower 
this boiler with natural gas. EPA's comment letter to New York requires 
that the NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit be set at 0.20 lb/mm BTU. This 
is the required limit, starting on July 1, 2014, for a very large gas/
oil fired cyclone boiler established by New York's adopted regulation 
Subpart 227-2 (Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Major 
Sources on Oxides of Nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>)). Subpart 227-2 requires 
compliance with this limit on 24-hour basis during the ozone season and 
on a 30-day rolling average during the non-ozone season.
    Should Boiler 42 repower with natural gas, EPA is not requiring 
emission limits for SO<INF>2</INF> and PM. New York has stated that it 
does not include emission limits for SO<INF>2</INF> and PM for gas 
fired boilers since these emissions are small and limiting these 
contaminants is not practically enforceable. New York estimates that if 
this boiler repowers with natural gas, the emission reductions will be 
about 4591 tpy SO<INF>2</INF> (99% reduction), 220 tpy PM (90% 
reduction), and 607 tpy NO<INF>X</INF> (67% reduction). EPA agrees that 
New York's analysis is reasonable and therefore EPA is not requiring 
emission limits for SO<INF>2</INF> and PM if Boiler 42 repowers with 
natural gas.
    Since New York's draft Title V permit does not include an emission 
limits for NO<INF>X</INF> for Boiler 42, EPA proposes to disapprove New 
York's BART determination for this boiler except that EPA is approving 
the draft compliance date for either retiring or repowering. EPA 
proposes a federal plan establishing a NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 
0.20 lb/mm BTU if Boiler 42 is repowered with natural gas.
    Kodak's BART analysis for Boiler 43 included an evaluation of 
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
by almost 67% to reach an emission limit of approximately 0.20 lb/mm 
BTU. Kodak's evaluation indicated that it is cost effective ($5,358/
ton) to install SCR to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by 67% at this 
cyclone type boiler. However Kodak's visibility analysis indicates that 
the visibility improvement at the Lye Brook Class I area is about 0.254 
dv (8th high) and 0.273 dv (8th high) cumulative at seven Class I areas 
even when full Boiler MACT controls (lime scrubber and a fabric filter) 
and SCR are evaluated together. Since the visibility improvement is 
small, EPA agrees with Kodak's evaluation that the current control 
technology (natural gas reburn) and limits summarized above for 
NO<INF>X</INF> represent BART for Boiler 43.
    Kodak's BART analysis for Boiler 43 also included an evaluation of 
lime spray dryer absorber (SDA) to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emission by 
90%. Lime SDA or an equal control technology is what may be required to 
meet the future Boiler MACT requirement for removal of the acid gas 
such as hydrogen chloride (HCl). Kodak's evaluation indicated that it 
is cost effective ($788/ton) to install such a control to remove 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. However, as indicated above for the SCR 
evaluation, Kodak's expected visibility analysis on a cumulative basis 
is only 0.273 dv (8th high) when SDA and SCR controls are evaluated 
together. Since this visibility improvement is small, EPA agrees with 
Kodak's evaluation and agrees that the current control limits for 
SO<INF>2</INF> summarized above represents BART for Boiler 43.
    Kodak's BART analysis for Boiler 43 did not include an evaluation 
of additional PM controls beyond the existing electrostatic 
precipitators. When the future Boiler MACT is implemented, the typical 
control retrofit will be the installation of a fabric filter, 
especially if a dry lime scrubber is installed. EPA agrees with Kodak's 
evaluation and agrees that the current control limits summarized above 
for PM represent BART for Boiler 43.

B. Four Package Boilers and Miscellaneous Small Sources

    New York has determined that four package boilers and numerous 
small (non-boiler) miscellaneous sources at the Kodak facility are BART 
eligible. Kodak conducted visibility modeling to demonstrate that the 
four BART eligible

[[Page 24819]]

package boilers, having low emissions, had visibility impacts below 
0.10 dv in Class I areas. The largest emissions from the numerous small 
non-boiler units were comparable to the emissions from the package 
boilers but were emitted from much shorter stacks. New York concluded 
therefore that these numerous small sources would have similar minimal 
visibility impacts on downwind Class I areas.
    With respect to the other smaller emission sources, EPA's BART 
Guidelines provide for exempting a BART-eligible source from being 
subject to BART if the source's impact on visibility impairment from 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM at any Class I area is de 
minimis. New York's rule established de minimis in this case as less 
than 0.1 deciviews. Analysis and modeling of the four packaged boilers 
and small numerous miscellaneous sources demonstrated maximum impacts 
of less than 0.10 dv. Therefore New York determined these units have 
negligible impacts on visibility and exempted them from further BART 
analysis. Since EPA's BART Guidelines for exempting a BART-eligible 
source applies to the entire facility and not individual units, and EPA 
did not set a specific visibility level as a cutoff for a required BART 
analysis, EPA does not agree that these units are exempted from a BART 
analysis. However, EPA agrees with New York that a study of possible 
BART controls for these miscellaneous sources with negligible 
visibility impacts would only result in the conclusion that BART 
control is economically infeasible on a dollar per deciview basis. 
Therefore EPA proposes to accept New York's determination that current 
operations with no additional control is BART.
    The aforementioned BART requirements for Boilers 41, 42 and 43 are 
included in New York's draft Title V permit including requirements for 
monitoring, record keeping and reporting and includes compliance dates 
as indicated above. New York expects to finalize the draft Title V 
permit and to submit it as a SIP revision for EPA approval by mid-2012.
    In addition, as discussed above, EPA is proposing a FIP for 
establishing a NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 0.20 lb/mm BTU for 
Boiler 42 should Kodak decide to repower this boiler with natural gas. 
The compliance date is by the Boiler MACT compliance date but not later 
than August 16, 2017.
    In summary, EPA is proposing partial approval and partial 
disapproval of New York's BART determinations for Boilers 41, 42 and 43 
at Kodak's Eastman Business Park facility. EPA is proposing to approve 
New York's BART determination for Boilers 41 and 43 and the compliance 
date for Boiler 42 to either permanently retire or repower because this 
BART determination was conducted in a manner consistent with EPA's 
Guidelines. EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of New York's BART 
determination for Boiler 42 because it does not include an emission 
limit for NO<INF>X</INF> should this boiler be repowered with natural 
gas.

International Paper Ticonderoga Mill

    The International Paper Company operates the Ticonderoga Mill, a 
Kraft Paper Mill, in Essex County. BART-eligible emission units at the 
Ticonderoga Mill are a Power Boiler and a Recovery Boiler. New York 
determined other smaller emission sources at the Mill consisting of a 
smelt dissolving tank, a lime kiln, and PM emission sources (a starch 
silo and two wood chip cyclones) to be exempt from further BART 
analysis based on modeling results showing that these units have less 
than 0.1 deciview impacts.
    The power boiler is rated at 855 mmBTU/hr heat input and designed 
to combust wood residue and No. 6 fuel oil at 1.5% sulfur and typically 
operates with a fuel mix of 80% oil and 20% wood/bark. The power boiler 
is currently equipped with low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, a wet scrubber 
and a multicyclone unit and subject to SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> 
and PM emission limits as a result of BACT, RACT, MACT and New York 
State regulations. The recovery boiler is a kraft recovery furnace used 
to recover chemicals from spent pulping liquor and to produce steam for 
the mill. The recovery boiler processes black liquor and combusts No. 6 
fuel oil as an auxiliary fuel less than 10% of the time. The boiler 
operates with a three-level staged combustion air supply system and an 
electrostatic precipitator control.

A. Power Boiler

    The power boiler currently operates with a wet-alkaline sodium 
hydroxide scrubber to control SO<INF>2</INF> emissions at a rate of 
approximately 65 percent efficiency. New York identified wet or dry 
scrubbing, the use of a lower sulfur fuel oil and combustion of natural 
gas as potential control technologies in the reduction of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the power boiler. The use of natural gas 
was not feasible due to the 70 miles distance to the nearest gas 
pipeline. Using a lower sulfur content fuel oil was shown to result in 
emission rates at or above the existing 309 lb/hr emission rate. In 
addition, the BART determination demonstrated insignificant visibility 
improvement (from 0.02 to 0.07 deciviews) with any lowering of the 
sulfur fuel oil, and any upgrades or improved operation of the existing 
control devices.
    New York determined that current operation of the wet-alkaline 
sodium hydroxide scrubber and the existing SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limit of 309 lb/hr on a 24-hour rolling average (approximately 1,350 
tons per year) to be BART for the power boiler. In the future, the 
boiler will need to comply with the ICI Boiler MACT acid gas control 
requirements. In response to EPA and FLM comments, New York also 
analyzed increasing the rate of caustic to the existing wet scrubber as 
a potential control technology for addressing BART. While this 
alternative is technically feasible and appears to be cost-effective, 
it results in an insignificant visibility improvement ranging from 0.02 
to 0.11 deciviews at the Lye Brook Wilderness Area, the closest Class I 
Area. In addition, any physical modifications to the scrubber would 
adversely affect PM control. Therefore, New York determined that 
existing controls and current emission limits represent BART for the 
control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the power boiler.
    The power boiler presently operates with low NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners, over fired air and flue gas recirculation. The existing 
emission limit for NO<INF>X</INF> emissions is 0.25 lb/mmBTU 
(approximately 936 tons per year). The boiler is also subject to 40 CFR 
63 subpart DDDDD for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers 
and Process Heaters which may require additional emissions monitoring 
and control in the future. The BART determination considered lowering 
the emission rate to 0.20 lb/mmBTU and 0.15 lb/mmBTU; however these 
emission rates were shown to result in an insignificant visibility 
improvement. Meeting a 0.20 lb/mmBTU emission rate resulted in maximum 
and eighth-highest visibility improvements of only 0.08 to 0.09 dv and 
0.03 to 0.04 dv, respectively. Meeting a 0.15 lb/mmBTU emission rate 
resulted in maximum and eighth-highest visibility improvements of 0.17-
0.18 dv and 0.07 dv, respectively. New York's BART determination notes 
that EPA's BART rule did not set specific presumptive NO<INF>X</INF> 
limits for oil-fired boilers, but should generally consider ``current 
combustion control technology.''
    New York determined that current operation of the low 
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, over fired air and flue gas recirculation 
controls and the existing NO<INF>X</INF> emission limit of 0.25 lb/
mmBTU to be BART for the power boiler. In addition the power boiler 
will need to comply with the ICI Boiler MACT and the Department's 
NO<INF>X</INF>

[[Page 24820]]

RACT regulation. Under EPA Guidance, states have wide discretion as to 
how they assess the BART five factors. Although EPA does not generally 
recommend that states rely solely on the visibility improvement 
consideration in making BART determinations, EPA does not believe that 
broader analysis of the costs and visibility benefits associated with 
installation of other post-combustion controls, such as SNCR and SCR, 
would have resulted in a different BART determination in this case. EPA 
proposes to find the current controls as being sufficient for BART is 
reasonable. For informational purposes, EPA notes that separate from 
International Paper's BART analysis, International Paper also evaluated 
possible controls to meet New York's NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements. 
Based on International Paper's January 2, 2012 analysis, SCR was found 
to not be technically feasible. SNCR would only achieve a 21% emission 
reduction from the current potential emission rate of 0.25 lb/mmBTU and 
therefore was not cost-effective.
    Filterable PM emissions from the power boiler are controlled by a 
multicyclone and the wet scrubber. Filterable PM emissions are limited 
to 0.10 lb/mmBTU. The maximum modeled visibility impact on a Class I 
area due to PM is 0.03 dv. Additional PM reductions are expected in the 
future to be required to meet new MACT standards. The proposed 
Industrial Commercial Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters MACT 
standard (40 CFR 63 subpart DDDDD) that would apply to the Power Boiler 
is 0.02 lb/mmBTU. New York found that PM emissions from the power 
boiler are low and have minimal impact on visibility.

B. Recovery Boiler

    Operation of the recovery boiler differs from that of conventional 
steam boilers in that the primary objective is to recover and re-use 
the sulfur. Proper operation of a recovery boiler itself results in 
inherent control of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. Additionally, this unit 
is a non-direct evaporation recovery furnace which inherently results 
in low SO<INF>2</INF> emissions. The available retrofit technologies 
for SO<INF>2</INF> control from kraft mill recovery boilers are staged 
combustion systems and wet scrubbers. The recovery boiler is already 
equipped with a three-level staged combustion air control system. New 
York determined it is technically infeasible to install a wet scrubbing 
device downstream of the existing ESP. There are only three recovery 
boilers in the U.S. equipped with wet scrubbers in addition to ESPs. 
New York determined that current operation of the three-level staged 
combustion air control system with ESPs be considered as BART for 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions for the recovery boiler. EPA proposes to find 
that other control technologies were not found to have been applied to 
other recovery boilers, and the current controls of the recovery boiler 
could be considered the maximum control for BART with a permitted 
emission limit of 4 parts per million dry volume.
    The majority of NO<INF>X</INF> formed in the recovery boiler is 
believed to be primarily fuel NO<INF>X</INF> due to the low 
temperatures in the boiler's combustion zone. Fuel NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions from recovery furnaces are typically low due to the low 
nitrogen content of black liquor solids. The boiler's three-level 
staged combustion system can also be operated to minimize 
NO<INF>X</INF> formation/emissions. New York considered other potential 
NO<INF>X</INF> control technologies to be staged combustion systems, 
selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction 
(SNCR), low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, and flue gas recirculation (FGR). 
Based on the unique nature of recovery boiler operation, each of these 
traditional boiler controls was ruled out as being technically 
infeasible. New York determined compliance with BART for NO<INF>X</INF> 
is the currently installed three-level staged combustion air control 
system with ESPs. The current permitted NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate 
for the Recovery Boiler is 100 ppm (by volume) corrected to 8% 
O<INF>2</INF>. Since there have been no applications of SCR or SNCR on 
recovery boilers in the United States, EPA proposes to find the current 
controls as being sufficient for BART is reasonable. Particulate 
emissions from the recovery boiler are currently controlled with a 
three-chamber ESP. In addition to ESPs, New York considered wet 
scrubbers and fabric filters as potential PM controls, however it is 
technically infeasible to install a wet scrubber downstream of the 
existing ESP on the recovery boiler, and fabric filters have not been 
applied to any recovery boilers at kraft pulp mills. The recovery 
boiler complies with the Chemical Recovery MACT standard (40 CFR 63, 
subpart MM). Therefore New York determined that current PM controls and 
emission limits for the recovery boiler satisfy BART. Since EPA states 
in its BART rule, ``* * * you may rely upon MACT standards for purposes 
of BART,'' EPA proposes to find the current controls as being 
sufficient for BART is reasonable.
    With respect to the other smaller emission sources, EPA's BART 
Guidelines provide for exempting a BART-eligible source from being 
subject to BART if the source's impact on visibility impairment from 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF> and PM at any Class I area is de 
minimis. New York's rule established de minimis in this case as less 
than 0.1 deciviews. Modeling of the smelt dissolving tank, lime kiln, 
and PM emission sources demonstrated maximum impacts of 0.017 dv, 0.001 
dv and 0.008 dv, respectively. Therefore New York determined these 
units have negligible impacts on visibility and exempted them from 
further BART analysis. Since EPA's BART Guidelines for exempting a 
BART-eligible source applies to the entire facility and not individual 
units, and EPA did not set a specific visibility level as a cutoff for 
a required BART analysis, EPA does not agree that these units are 
exempted from a BART analysis. However, EPA agrees with New York that a 
study of possible BART controls for these miscellaneous sources with 
negligible visibility impacts would only result in the conclusion that 
BART control is economically infeasible on a dollar per deciview basis. 
The highest emitting of these smaller sources, the smelt dissolving 
tank, is already equipped with a wet scrubber and meets the MACT 
standard for PM. Therefore, EPA proposes to accept New York's 
determination that current operations with no additional control is 
BART.
    EPA has reviewed New York's analyses for all of the International 
Paper BART-eligible sources and concluded they were conducted in a 
manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. EPA proposes to approve 
New York's BART determinations for the International Paper facility and 
specifically proposes to approve the following emission limits for the 
power boiler: 309 lbs SO<INF>2</INF>/hr; 0.25 lbs NO<INF>X</INF>/mmBTU; 
0.1 lbs PM/mmBTU; and for the recovery boiler: 4 ppmdv total reduced 
sulfur; 100 ppmdv for NO<INF>X</INF>; and 0.03 grains per dry standard 
cubic foot for PM. Though New York's Part 249 requires BART controls to 
be installed and implemented by January 1, 2014, International Paper 
must presently comply with these BART emission limits since they 
represent existing permit conditions.
    EPA proposes approval of the International Paper BART determination 
as a revision to the SIP. If New York does not submit all of the BART 
determinations and associated documents and permits to EPA as source-
specific SIP revisions, then this proposal also serves as EPA's 
proposed federal plan for determining BART for BART-eligible sources at 
International Paper.
    In summary, all of the aforementioned BART requirements for each 
unit of all

[[Page 24821]]

19 BART sources are included in New York's draft or final Title V 
permits including requirements for monitoring, record keeping and 
reporting. Compliance is due by the effective date of the Title V 
permit. New York expects to finalize all draft Title V permits and to 
submit all final Title V permits as a SIP revision for EPA approval by 
mid-2012. Once the SIP revision is approved by EPA (EPA final action 
for all 19 BART sources is scheduled for August 16, 2012) the BART 
requirements for each unit become federally enforceable. Should New 
York not submit the final Title V permit for each unit in a timely 
manner, EPA proposes that the BART requirements be considered as 
federal requirements as part of a FIP as discussed above.
c. Enforceability of BART
    New York's BART requirements must be included as operating permit 
conditions in accordance with 40 CFR part 70, and the State regulations 
promulgated at 6 NYCRR Part 249. All of the BART facilities submitted 
permit modification applications to incorporate the BART requirements. 
New York has approved the permit modifications for National Grid's EF 
Barrett Power Station, National Grid's Northport Power Station, Con 
Ed's 59th Street Station, NRG's Arthur Kill's Generating Station, TC 
Ravenswood's Ravenswood Generating Station, Con Ed's Ravenswood Steam 
Plant, Dynegy's Roseton Generating Station, Holcim US's Catskill Plant, 
Lafarge Building Materials' Ravena Plant, International Paper's 
Ticonderoga Mill, Lehigh Northeast Cement's Glens Falls Plant, Alcoa 
Massena Operation's West Plant, Johnstown BPU's Samuel A Carlson 
Generating Station, and has proposed the permit modifications for 
GenOn's Bowline Generating Station, Dynegy's Danskammer Generating 
Station, Owens Corning's Delmar Plant, NRG's Oswego Harbor Power, GDF 
Suez's Syracuse Energy Corporation, Eastman Kodak/Duke Energy's Kodak 
Park Division. When all permit modifications are completed, New York 
will submit all of the BART determinations and associated documents and 
permits to EPA as source-specific SIP revisions.
    EPA has reviewed New York's BART determinations for all of the BART 
eligible sources, including all supporting documentation, information 
and proposed permit modifications. New York has requested public 
comment on the proposed permit modifications, which identify the 
required BART controls, and in many cases the comment periods have 
closed. New York is in the process of addressing any comments received 
and issuing the permit modifications in final form. EPA proposes in the 
alternative to approve New York's BART determinations and emissions 
limits should New York submit final permit modifications to EPA as SIP 
revisions and the revisions match the terms of our proposed FIP. EPA is 
proposing approval of New York's BART determinations because they were 
conducted in a manner consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines. In the 
event New York does not submit a SIP revision with final permit 
modifications for all BART sources, EPA will publish a final rulemaking 
with a FIP for those BART sources, as proposed in this action.
    Should New York submit all of the final BART permit modifications 
as a SIP revision, and the revisions match the terms of our proposed 
FIP, EPA proposes to approve New York's BART requirements based on the 
BART determinations discussed above and the respective BART limitations 
on emissions, source operation and fuel use. New York's BART 
determinations contain the appropriate regulatory requirements related 
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on 
the sources. Lastly, New York's BART determinations require BART 
controls 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, as required in the CAA and in the RHR.
d. New York's Part 249--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    On August 2, 2010, New York submitted to EPA as a revision to its 
SIP, rule changes to Part 249 ``Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART)'' and amendments to Part 200 ``General Provisions'' of Title 6 
of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the 
State of New York (6 NYCRR). New York completed all the administrative 
requirements for these rule changes, including a public hearing and 
response to comments. The effective date for Part 249 and amendments to 
Part 200 is May 6, 2010.
    Part 249 was adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act Section 169A and 
the federal Regional Haze Rule to reduce the emissions of pollutants 
which contribute to regional haze in Federal Class I areas. New York 
was obligated to promulgate Part 249 in order to require New York 
sources which contribute to haze issues in Class I areas in downwind 
states to control emissions which contribute to haze. Part 249 required 
BART eligible facilities to perform an analysis of potential controls 
for each visibility-impairing pollutant. The analysis of controls was 
due to New York by October 1, 2010. The compliance date contained in 
Part 249 is January 1, 2014--within EPA's BART Guidance for compliance 
within five years of EPA's approval of the state's Regional Haze SIP. 
Part 249 also provides that each BART determination established by New 
York will be submitted to EPA for approval as a revision to the SIP.
    New York completed all the administrative requirements for this 
rule, including a public hearing and addressed the public comments. EPA 
has evaluated New York's BART rule submittal for consistency with the 
Clean Air Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and the rule meets 
administrative requirements. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve New 
York's Part 249 as part of the SIP.

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the 
consultation process within the context of regional haze planning, 
intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs. 
MANE-VU States held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls 
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU 
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants 
from VISTAS, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land Managers also 
attended. In addition to the conference calls and meeting, the FLMs 
were given the opportunity to review and comment on each of the 
technical documents developed by MANE-VU. No additional measures beyond 
those developed as part of the MANE-VU ``ask'' were recommended by 
other states or the FLMs.
    New York State provided the FLMs a copy of the draft SIP. The FLM's 
comments and New York State's responses are included in Appendix B, 
Summary of Federal Land Manager Comments and Responses. New York 
committed to coordinate and consult with the FLMs on implementation of 
emission strategies, by providing summaries of major new source 
permits, upcoming rulemakings that may contribute to visibility 
impairment, and any revisions to the haze plans. Based on these actions 
and commitments, EPA has determined that New York has fulfilled the 
requirements for consultation with the FLMs. In addition,

[[Page 24822]]

in New York's attempts to implement the MANE-VU emission control 
agreements, New York fulfills the requirement for consultation with 
states with Class I areas.
    New York State held public hearings on this proposed SIP revision, 
its BART rule and implementation of New York's legislation on sulfur 
content in fuels. The hearings occurred in Albany, Avon and New York 
City on the first three days in December. Written comments relevant to 
the proposal were accepted through December 24, 2009. The State 
responded to the comments in its public comments document. Comments 
came from the EPA, potential BART sources and organizations of industry 
groups.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    In Section 11.0 of its haze SIP, New York commits to revise and 
submit a regional haze implementation plan by July 31, 2018 to address 
the next ten years of progress toward the national goal in the Act of 
eliminating manmade haze by 2064, and to submit a plan every ten years 
thereafter, in accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) of the Federal rule for regional haze. New York commits to 
submitting the required Mid-Course Review report every five years after 
the initial submittal of the haze SIP. New York's commitment includes 
continuing to consult with the FLMs on the implementation of Section 
51.308 and this SIP, including development and review of SIP revisions 
and five-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other 
programs affecting the impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 
Finally, New York commits to meet the required periodic updates of the 
emission inventory as required under 51.308(d)(4)(v).
    Since there are no Class I areas in the State, New York does not 
have to address the RAVI and monitoring strategy requirements of the 
RHR.

V. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the 
revision to the New York SIP addressing regional haze submitted on 
March 15, 2010, and supplemented on August 2, 2010. EPA proposes to 
disapprove the following BART determinations:
    <bullet> New York's SO<INF>2</INF> BART determinations and 
emissions limits for Roseton Units 1 and 2.
    <bullet> New York's SO<INF>2</INF> BART determinations and 
emissions limits for Danskammer Unit 4.
    <bullet> New York's SO<INF>2,</INF> NO<INF>X</INF> and PM emissions 
limits for Kodak's Boiler 42.
    EPA proposes to disapprove the following facility BART 
determinations and emission limits because while New York has proposed 
permit modifications, New York has not issued final permit 
modifications or submitted them to EPA as a SIP revision: Bowline Point 
Generating Station; Danskammer Generating Station; Owens Corning Delmar 
Plant; Oswego Harbor Power; Syracuse Energy Corporation; Kodak Park 
Division.
    EPA proposes to disapprove the following facility BART 
determinations and emission limits because New York has not submitted 
final permit modifications to EPA as a SIP revision: EF Barrett Power 
Station; Northport Power Station; 59th Street Station; Arthur Kill 
Generating Station; Ravenswood Generating Station; Ravenswood Steam 
Plant; Roseton Generating Station; Holcim (US) Inc--Catskill Plant; 
Lafarge Building Materials; International Paper Ticonderoga Mill; 
Lehigh Northeast Cement; ALCOA Massena Operations (West Plant); Samuel 
A Carlson Generating Station.
    EPA is proposing a FIP to address the deficiencies identified in 
our proposed partial disapproval of New York's Regional Haze SIP. In 
lieu of this proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we are proposing 
approval of a SIP revision if the State submits such a revision in a 
timely way, and the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP, or 
relevant portion thereof.
    EPA proposes to approve the remaining aspects of New York's 
Regional Haze SIP revision as follows: New York's determination under 
the reasonable progress requirements that all measures found to be 
reasonable have been enacted and implemented; New York's Long Term 
Strategy, will be approvable, only if New York submits all of the final 
permit modifications in a timely manner, and with the level of control 
in EPA's proposed FIP; New York's SIP revision consisting of New York's 
6 NYCRR Part 249.
    EPA proposes in the alternative to approve all of the facility BART 
determinations and emissions limits should New York submit final permit 
modifications to EPA as SIP revisions, and the revisions match the 
terms of our proposed FIP.
    EPA is taking this action pursuant to those provisions of the Act. 
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
document and will consider these comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in detail in section 
C below, the proposed FIP applies to only nine facilities. It is 
therefore not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of 
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons. * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP 
applies to just nine facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not 
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant

[[Page 24823]]

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on 
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Regional Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the 
regional haze program consists of imposing federal controls to meet the 
BART requirement for SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM emissions 
on specific units at nine facilities in New York. The net result of 
this FIP action is that EPA is proposing direct emission controls on 
selected units at only nine facilities. The facilities in question are 
either large electric generating plants or large industrial boilers 
that are not owned by small entities, and therefore are not small 
entities. The proposed partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-
Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (DC Cir. 1985)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule 
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally 
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 
EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that 
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that 
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. In 
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does 
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments.

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 addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit 
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect 
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 
proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 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

    Executive Order 13045: 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 we have reason to believe may have a

[[Page 24824]]

disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to E.O. 13045 because it implements specific standards 
established by Congress in statutes. However, to the extent this 
proposed rule will limit emissions of SO<INF>2,</INF> NO<INF>X</INF>, 
and PM the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's health by 
reducing air pollution.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (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

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(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.
    The 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.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule limits emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM from nine facilities in New 
York. The partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves 
state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart HH--New York

    2. New Sec.  52.1686 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1686  Federal implementation plan for regional haze.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator 
of the following electric generating units (EGUs) and large industrial 
boilers in the State of New York: Danskammer Generating Station, Unit 
4; Roseton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; Syracuse Energy 
Corporation, Unit 1; Bowline Point Generating Station, Units 1 and 2; 
Eastman Kodak Business Park, Units 41, 42, and 43; Delmar Plant, Units 
EU2, EU3, EU12, EU13 and EU14; Oswego Harbor Power, Units 5 and 6; and 
Ravenswood Generating Station, Units 10, 20 and 30; EF Barrett Power 
Station, Northport Power Station, 59th Street Station, Arthur Kill 
Generating Station, Ravenswood Steam Plant, Roseton Generating Station, 
Holcim Catskill Plant, Lafarge Building Materials, International Paper 
Ticonderoga Mill, Lehigh Northeast Cement Plant, ALCOA Massena 
Operations (West Plant), Samuel A Carlson Generating Station.
    (b) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning 
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the 
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and 
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time 
in the EGU, boiler or emission unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be 
combusted for the entire 24-hour period.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment 
required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and provide, by 
means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes (using an 
automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a permanent 
record of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM emissions, other 
pollutant emissions, diluent, or stack gas volumetric flow rate.
    SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
    NOX means nitrogen oxides.
    PM means particulate matter.
    Owner/operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, 
controls, or supervises an EGU or boiler identified in paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    Unit means any of the EGUs or boilers identified in paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    (c) Emissions limitations--(1) The owners/operators subject to this 
section shall not emit or cause to be emitted SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM in excess of the following limitations, averaged 
over a rolling 30-day period unless otherwise indicated below:

[[Page 24825]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         BART Controls/Limits
           Facilities                  BART Unit     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NOX                 SO2                 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danskammer Generating Station--   4.................  0.12 lb/mm BTU, 24  Option 1: 0.50 lb/  0.06 lb/mm BTU, 1
 Dynegy.                                               hr avg ozone        mm BTU, 24 hr avg.  hr avg.
                                                       season, 30 day     Compliance 7/1/     Compliance 7/1/
                                                       avg rest of yr.     2014..              2014.
                                                      Compliance 7/1/     Option 2: 0.09 lb/
                                                       2014..              mm BTU, 24 hr
                                                                           avg..
                                                                          Compliance 7/1/
                                                                           2014..
Roseton Generating Station--      1 & 2.............  0.20 lb/mm BTU, 24  0.55 lb/mm BTU, 24  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
 Dynegy.                                               hr avg ozone        hr avg.
                                                       season, 30 day
                                                       avg rest of yr.
Syracuse Energy Corporation--GDF  1.................  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014.
 Suez.
Bowline Point Generating          1 & 2.............  0.15 lb/mm BTU, 24  0.37% sulfur fuel   0.10 lb mm BTU.
 Station--GenOn.                                       hr avg ozone        oil.
                                                       season, 30 day
                                                       avg rest of yr.
Kodak Operations at Eastman       41................  Retire 12/31/2013.  Retire 12/31/2013.  Retire 12/31/2013.
 Business Park--Kodak.
                                  42................  Retire or repower   Retire or repower   Retire or repower
                                                       with natural gas    with natural gas    with natural gas
                                                       by the Boiler       by the Boiler       by the Boiler
                                                       MACT compliance     MACT compliance     MACT compliance
                                                       date but not        date but not        date but not
                                                       later than 8/16/    later than 8/16/    later than 8/16/
                                                       2017.               2017.               2017.
                                                      0.20 lb/mm Btu, 24
                                                       hr avg ozone
                                                       season, 30 day
                                                       avg rest of yr..
                                  43................  0.60 lb/mm BTU, 24  Coal 2.5% sulfur    Coal 0.24 lb/mm
                                                       hr avg ozone        Oil 1.5% sulfur.    BTU, Oil 0.10 lb/
                                                       season, 30 day                          mm BTU.
                                                       avg rest of yr.
Owens Corning Delmar Plant--      EU2, EU3, EU12,     Emit <250 tons per  Emit <250 tons per  Emit <250 tons per
 Owens Corning.                    EU13 & EU14.        year, cumulative.   year, cumulative.   year, cumulative.
Oswego Harbor Power--NRG........  5.................  383 tpy, 12 month   0.75% sulfur fuel,  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       rolling total.      0.80 lb/mm BTU, 3
                                                                           hr rolling avg.
                                  6.................  665 tpy, 12 month   0.75% sulfur fuel,  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       rolling total.      0.80 lb/mm BTU, 3
                                                                           hr rolling avg.
Ravenswood Generating Station--   10, 20, 30........  Natural gas         0.30% sulfur fuel   0.1 lb/mm BTU.
 Trans Canada.                                         primary fuel,       oil.
                                                       0.15 lb/mm BTU.
EF Barrett Power Station--NG....  2.................  0.10 lb/mm BTU,     0.37% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       when firing
                                                       natural gas and
                                                       0.20 lb/mm BTU
                                                       when firing low
                                                       sulfur fuel oil,
                                                       both on a 24-hour
                                                       avg.
Northport Power Station--NG.....  1-3...............  0.10 lb/mm BTU,     0.70% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       when firing
                                                       natural gas and
                                                       0.20 lb/mm BTU
                                                       when firing fuel
                                                       oil, both on a 24
                                                       hr avg.
                                  4.................  0.10 lb/mm BTU,     0.75% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       when firing
                                                       natural gas and
                                                       0.20 lb/mm BTU
                                                       when firing fuel
                                                       oil, both on a 24
                                                       hr avg.
59th Street Station--Con Ed.....  114 & 115.........  0.32 lb/mm BTU, 30- 0.30% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU, by
                                                       day rolling                             stack tests.
                                                       average.
Arthur Kill Generating Station--  30................  Natural gas         Natural gas         359 tpy.
 NRG.                                                  combustion, 0.15    combustion 0.15
                                                       lb/mm BTU, 24 hr    lb/MM BTU.
                                                       avg ozone season,
                                                       30 day avg rest
                                                       of yr.
Ravenswood Steam Plant--Con Ed..  2.................  0.32 lb/mm BTU, 30- 0.30% sulfur fuel.  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
                                                       day rolling
                                                       average.
Catskill Plant--Holcim (US) Inc.  0KILN.............  Retire 2/13/2012..  Retire 2/13/2012.   ..................
Lafarge Building Materials......  1 & 2.............  Retire 6/30/2015..  Retire 6/30/2015..  Retire 6/30/2015.
International Paper Ticonderoga   Power.............  0.25 lb/mm BTU....  309 lb/hr on a 24-  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
 Mill--International Paper.                                                hr rolling
                                                                           average.
                                  Recovery..........  100 ppm dry         4 ppm dry volume    0.03 grains per
                                                       volume, corrected   Total reduced       dry standard
                                                       to 8% O2.           sulfur.             cubic foot.

[[Page 24826]]

 
Lehigh Northeast Cement--Lehigh   kiln..............  2.88 lb/ton         2.5 lb/mm BTU max,  0.03 lb/ton feed.
 Cement.                                               clinker produced.  1.9 lb/mm BTU on a
                                                                           90-day average,.
                                                                          1.7 lb/mm BTU max
                                                                           on a 12 month
                                                                           rolling average,.
                                                                          When CEMS
                                                                           certified:.
                                                                          5.10 lb/mm BTU
                                                                           daily, 3.8 lb/mm
                                                                           BTU on a 90-day
                                                                           average, 3.4 lb/
                                                                           mm BTU on a 12
                                                                           month rolling
                                                                           average
                                  Clinker cooler....  ..................  ..................  0.10 lb/ton feed.
ALCOA Massena Operations (West    Potlines..........  Emit <=50 tpy.....  2.5% sulfur anode   Emit <=168 tpy PM-
 Plant)--Alcoa.                                                            coke, 12 month      10.
                                                                           rolling avg.
                                  Baking furnaces...  Emit <=203 tpy....  2.5% sulfur anode   Emit <=24 tpy PM-
                                                                           coke, 12 month      10.
                                                                           rolling avg.
                                  Boilers...........  0.30 lb/mm BTU....  1.5% sulfur fuel..  0.10 lb/mm BTU.
Samuel A Carlson Generating       12................  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014...  Retire 1/1/2014.
 Station--Jamestown Board of
 Public Utilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including 
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
    (d) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this 
section shall comply with the emissions limitations and other 
requirements of this section by January 1, 2014 unless otherwise 
indicated in paragraph (c).
    (e) Compliance determination using CEMS--(1) CEMS. At all times 
after the compliance date specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 
the owner/operator of each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate 
a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 
75, to accurately measure SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM, 
diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each unit. The CEMS 
shall be used to determine compliance with the emission limitations in 
paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
    (2) Method. (i) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, 
the owner/operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and PM concentration in lb/MMBtu at the 
CEMS in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end 
of each boiler operating day, the owner/operator shall calculate and 
record a new average emission rate, consistent with paragraph (c) 
averaging period, in lb/MMBtu from the arithmetic average of all valid 
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current boiler operating 
day.
    (ii) An hourly average SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, or PM 
emission rate in lb/MMBtu is valid only if the minimum number of data 
points, as specified in 40 CFR part 75, is acquired by the 
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, or PM pollutant concentration monitor 
and the diluent monitor (O<INF>2</INF> or CO<INF>2</INF>).
    (iii) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall 
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution 
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been 
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
    (f) Compliance determination using fuel certification--
    The owner or operator of each affected facility subject to a 
federally enforceable requirement limiting the fuel sulfur content may 
use fuel supplier certification to demonstrate compliance. Records of 
fuel supplier certification, as described under paragraph (f)(1), (2), 
(3), or (4) of this section, as applicable, shall be maintained and 
reports submitted as required under paragraph (h). In addition to 
records of fuel supplier certifications, the report shall include a 
certified statement signed by the owner or operator of the affected 
facility that the records of fuel supplier certifications submitted 
represent all of the fuel combusted during the reporting period.
    Fuel supplier certification shall include the following 
information:
    (1) For distillate oil:
    (i) The name of the oil supplier;
    (ii) A statement from the oil supplier that the oil complies with 
the specifications under the definition of distillate oil in Sec.  
60.41c; and
    (iii) The sulfur content or maximum sulfur content of the oil.
    (2) For residual oil:
    (i) The name of the oil supplier;
    (ii) The location of the oil when the sample was drawn for analysis 
to determine the sulfur content of the oil, specifically including 
whether the oil was sampled as delivered to the affected facility, or 
whether the sample was drawn from oil in storage at the oil supplier's 
or oil refiner's facility, or other location;
    (iii) The sulfur content of the oil from which the shipment came 
(or of the shipment itself); and
    (iv) The method used to determine the sulfur content of the oil.
    (3) For coal:
    (i) The name of the coal supplier;
    (ii) The location of the coal when the sample was collected for 
analysis to determine the properties of the coal, specifically 
including whether the coal was sampled as delivered to the affected 
facility or whether the sample was collected from coal in storage at 
the mine, at a coal preparation plant, at a coal supplier's facility, 
or at another location. The certification shall include the name of the 
coal mine (and coal seam), coal storage facility, or coal preparation 
plant (where the sample was collected);
    (iii) The results of the analysis of the coal from which the 
shipment came (or of the shipment itself) including the sulfur content, 
moisture content, ash content, and heat content; and
    (iv) The methods used to determine the properties of the coal.

[[Page 24827]]

    (4) For other fuels:
    (i) The name of the supplier of the fuel;
    (ii) The potential sulfur emissions rate or maximum potential 
sulfur emissions rate of the fuel in ng/J heat input; and
    (iii) The method used to determine the potential sulfur emissions 
rate of the fuel.
    (g) Compliance determination with an annual emission limit--The 
owner or operator of each affected facility subject to a federally 
enforceable requirement limiting the annual emissions shall calculate 
the annual emissions individually for each fuel combusted, as 
applicable. The annual emission limitation is determined on a 12-month 
rolling average basis with a new annual emission limitation calculated 
at the end of the calendar month, unless a different reporting period 
is identified in paragraph (c).
    (h) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator shall maintain the following 
records for at least five years:
    (1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling 
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (2) All fuel supplier certifications and information identified in 
paragraph (f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, as applicable.
    (3) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for 
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records 
required by 40 CFR Part 75.
    (4) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on 
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (5) Any other records required by 40 CFR part 75.
    (i) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to 
the Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New 
York 10007-1866.
    (1) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions reports 
no later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. 
Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include 
the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excess 
emissions, specific identification of each period of excess emissions 
that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, 
the nature and cause of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective 
action taken or preventative measures adopted.
    (2) Owner/operator shall submit quarterly CEMS performance reports, 
to include dates and duration of each period during which the CEMS was 
inoperative (except for zero and span adjustments and calibration 
checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was inoperative and steps taken to 
prevent recurrence, any CEMS repairs or adjustments, and results of any 
CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75 (Relative Accuracy 
Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas Audits).
    (3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been 
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such 
information shall be stated in the report.
    (4) Owner/operator shall submit semi-annual fuel certification 
reports no later than the 30th day following the end of each six month 
period.
    (5) Owner/operator shall submit an annual emissions limitation 
calculation report no later than the 30th day following the end of the 
calendar year or quarter if a rolling average is required in paragraph 
(c).
    (j) Notifications. (1) Owner/operator shall submit notification of 
commencement of construction of any equipment which is being 
constructed to comply with the NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Owner/operator shall submit semi-annual progress reports on 
construction of any such equipment.
    (3) Owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup of 
any such equipment.
    (k) Equipment operation. At all times, owner/operator shall 
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control 
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions.
    (l) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the 
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or 
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance 
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or 
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.

[FR Doc. 2012-9839 Filed 4-24-12; 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>