```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27973-27985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11839]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0289, FRL-9305-4]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Delaware State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Delaware through 
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 
(DNREC) on September 25, 2008 that addresses regional haze for the 
first implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to 
prevent any future, and remedy any existing, anthropogenic impairment 
of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air 
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area 
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are 
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of 
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Regional Haze plan submitted by 
Delaware satisfies the requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking this 
action pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. EPA is also proposing 
to approve this revision as meeting the requirements of 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection 
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 
and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0289 by one of the following methods:
    A. http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0289, Cristina Fernandez, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0289. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online 
at http:[sol][sol]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

[[Page 27974]]

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal 
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the 
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 89 
Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814-2037, or 
by e-mail at mailto:lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 25, 2008, the Delaware 
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control submitted a 
revision to its SIP to address Regional Haze for the first 
implementation period.

Table of Contents

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

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA.

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) 
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) 
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react 
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter, which impairs 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. 
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition 
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions (64 FR 
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background Information

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the

[[Page 27975]]

relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were 
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122, 
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule 
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the 
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and 
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I 
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze 
requirements are summarized in section II of this notice. The 
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\3\ Section 51.308(b) 
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the 
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the 
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning organization. MANE-VU is a 
collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and 
various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate 
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, 
and other air quality issues in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor 
of the United States. Member States and tribal governments include: 
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and 
Vermont.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that 
within three years of promulgation of a National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS), a State must ensure that its SIP, among other 
requirements, ``contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source or 
other types of emission activity within the State from emitting any air 
pollutant in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be 
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State to 
protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that 
such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of part C of (Subchapter I) 
(relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility 
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as 
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance, 
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could 
meet such visibility requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's 
rationale supporting this recommendation was that the development of 
the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative 
environment among the states, and that through this process states 
would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an 
interstate basis. The common understanding was that, as a result of 
this collaborative environment, each state would take action to achieve 
the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their 
reasonable progress demonstrations under the Regional Haze Rule. This 
interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the Regional Haze 
Rule that a state participating in a regional planning process must 
include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the Regional Haze Rule, 
recognizes the importance of addressing the long-range transport of 
pollutants for visibility and encourages states to work together to 
develop plans to address haze. The regulations explicitly require each 
state to address its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to 
meet the reasonable progress goals for neighboring Class I areas. 
States working together through a regional planning process, are 
required to address an agreed upon share of their contribution to 
visibility impairment in the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these requirements, appropriate regional haze 
SIPs will contain measures that will achieve these emissions reductions 
and will meet the applicable visibility related requirements of section 
110(a)(2).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all 
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical 
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze, 
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to 
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU States 
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the 
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their 
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling 
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the 
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were 
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU, 
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part 
of the State's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The 
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been 
prepared by

[[Page 27976]]

the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the emissions 
reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the MANE-VU 
process.
    Delaware submitted a Regional Haze SIP on September 25, 2008, to 
address the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. On December 13, 
2007, Delaware submitted its original 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On September 16, 2009, Delaware submitted a 
1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submittal 
amendment and an infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. On the September 16, 2009 submittal, Delaware indicated that its 
Regional Haze SIP would meet the requirements of the CAA, section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Delaware also 
indicated it will meet the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), and 
specifically references the Regional Haze SIP submitted on September. 
EPA has reviewed Delaware's Regional Haze SIP and, as explained in 
section IV of this action, proposes to find that Delaware's Regional 
Haze submittal meets the portions of the requirements of the CAA 
sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

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

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

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead 
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility 
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year 
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR

[[Page 27977]]

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary 
for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental 
impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any 
potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how 
these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and 
worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have considerable 
flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted 
in EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 
Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 
1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, 
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also 
consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility 
conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or 
the ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to 
achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. 
Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 
2064 represents a rate of progress which states are to use for 
analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. 
In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I 
state'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing states,'' 
i.e., other nearby states with emission sources that may be affecting 
visibility impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set 
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, 
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other 
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4)). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that 
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the 
source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005). 
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap and 
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP 
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric 
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for 
emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)). 
Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still 
required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject 
to BART for that pollutant.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance

[[Page 27978]]

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 following seven factors listed below are 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; (2) measures to mitigate the 
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and 
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and 
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural 
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist 
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions 
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

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

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

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

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

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

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

III. What is EPA's analysis of Delaware's regional haze submittal?

    On September 25, 2008, the Delaware DNREC submitted revisions to 
the Delaware SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Delaware has no Class I areas within its borders, but has been 
identified as influencing the visibility impairment of the Brigantine 
National Wildlife Refuge

[[Page 27979]]

Class I area, located in the State of New Jersey. Delaware is 
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses this 
Class I area, that describes its long-term emission strategy, its role 
in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets the other 
requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations. However, since 
Delaware has no Class I areas within its borders, Delaware is not 
required to address the following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a) 
Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, (b) 
establishment of reasonable progress goals, (c) monitoring 
requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in Section II.E of this action, the 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 
established by New Jersey, the Class I area state. Delaware's LTS for 
the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from 
federal, State, and local controls that take effect in the State from 
the baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. Delaware participated 
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process. As a participant, 
Delaware 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; (b) 
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I 
Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of 
Options for Conducting BART Determinations; and (d) Assessment of 
Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric 
Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp 
Facilities.
    The LTS was developed by Delaware, in coordination with MANE-VU, 
identifying the emissions units within Delaware that likely have the 
largest impacts currently on visibility at the Brigantine National 
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, 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 
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class I area.
    Delaware's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of 
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with 
New Jersey and includes enforceable emissions limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals established by New Jersey for the Brigantine National 
Wildlife Refuge Class I area.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from 
Delaware. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 
emissions, and assuming 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 NOX, PM10, 
PM2.5, and SO2. The BART guidelines direct States 
to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair 
visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in Section 
III.B.3, below. MANE-VU demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of 
sulfates are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic region. 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 Delaware SIP, the 
pollutants Delaware considered under BART are NOX, 
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
    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 
Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an inventory of 
biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region. Stationary point 
sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage 
per year, depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the 
facility level. Stationary area sources are those sources whose 
individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number 
of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category 
could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment that can 
move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source emissions are 
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system. The 
emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road 
type. Biogenic sources are 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 types emissions are 
summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and State control programs being implemented 
that MANE-VU and Delaware 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 Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge. To assess emissions 
reductions from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and 
reasonable progress goals MANE-VU developed 2018 emissions projections 
called Best and Final. The emissions inventory provided by the State of 
Delaware for the Best and Final 2018 projections is based on adopted 
and enforceable requirements.
    The ongoing air pollution control programs relied upon by Delaware 
for the Best and Final projections include Delaware's Regulation 1144--
Control of Stationary Generator Emissions; Regulation 1146--Electric 
Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation; Regulation 1148--Control of 
Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions; 
Regulation 1142, Section 1--Control of NOX Emissions from 
Industrial Boilers; Regulation 1142, Section 2--Control of 
NOX Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at 
Petroleum Refineries; Regulation 1124, Section 46--Crude Oil Lightering 
Operations; a Valero Refinery consent decree; the NOX SIP 
Call; NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in 
the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs for Delaware; NOX OTC 2001 
Model Rule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers; 
Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for non-road trucks and 
buses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for the on-road vehicles; 
Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and 
EPA's non-road diesel rules. The estimated emissions reductions 
resulting from Delaware's EGU Regulations 1144, 1146, and 1148 are 75% 
for SO2 and 57% for NOX from 2002 base year.
    Delaware also relied on emission reductions from various federal 
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules in the development 
of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT rules include 
the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines 
MACT, the industrial boiler and process heaters MACT and the 2-, 4-, 7-
, and 10-year MACT standards.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the 
vacatur

[[Page 27980]]

and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\6\ This MACT was vacated 
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition 
Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the 
vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). Delaware's modeling included emission 
reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule. Delaware did 
not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. However, 
the expected reductions in SO2 and PM are small relative to 
the Delaware inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the expected reductions of 
the new rule acceptable since the final rule requires compliance by 
2014, it provides Delaware time to assure the required controls are in 
place prior to the end of the first implementation period in 2018. In 
addition, the RHR requires 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 2018 
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emissions inventories for Delaware. The 2018 estimated 
emissions include emission growth as well as emission reductions due to 
ongoing emission control strategies, BART, and reasonable progress 
goals.

                     Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for Delaware in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NOX       PM2.5       PM10       NH3        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................      4,755     16,345      3,666      4,217        196     73,744
Area..........................................     15,519      2,608      3,204     13,039     13,279      1,588
On-Road Mobile................................     10,564     21,341        415        581        903        584
Off-Road Mobile...............................      8,010     16,227        926      1,021          5      3,983
Biogenic......................................     46,343        990          0          0          0          0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................     85,191     57,511      8,211     18,858     14,383     79,899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for Delaware ``Best and Final'' in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NOX       PM2.5       PM10       NH3        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................      2,104     16,587      3,692      4,437        210     16,707
Area..........................................     13,066      3,014      3,073     10,500     13,342        380
On-Road Mobile................................      5,037      5,917        191        202      1,328        128
Off-Road Mobile...............................      5,652     14,631        808        896          6      3,296
Biogenic......................................     46,343        990          0          0          0          0
 
    Total.....................................     72,202     41,139      7,764     16,035     14,886     20,511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 11 
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of Columbia. The 
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with 
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling 
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania 
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory 
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling 
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of 
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission 
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: 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 at a regional 
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and 
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid model that was 
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the 
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF), 
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access 
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at 
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that 
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent 
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling 
grid of 36x36 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 which resulted in the selection of the entire year of 
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology 
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU states modeling 
was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and 
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 
Ozone, 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),

[[Page 27981]]

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 State of Delaware 
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required 
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and 
modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are 
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. 
EPA 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 according to 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 Delaware LTS and 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.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment, 
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5 
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and 
Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than 
50 percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I 
areas on the clearest days and for as much as or more than 80 percent 
on the haziest days. In particular, 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 particle 
extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts 
for the next largest fraction of light extinction. 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.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict 
that reductions in SO2 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 would rely heavily on broad-based regional 
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
    Since the State of Delaware does not have a Class I area, it is not 
required to establish RPGs. However, Delaware has been identified as 
influencing the visibility impairment of the Brigantine National 
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, located in the State of New Jersey. As 
such, Delaware participated in consultations to discuss the reasonable 
progress goals being considered by New Jersey for the affected Class I 
area. As a result, the state of New Jersey adopted four RPGs that will 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility: 
Timely implementation of BART requirements; a 90 percent reduction in 
SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by 
MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks (5 are located in Delaware); 
adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and continued evaluation of 
other control measures to reduce SO2 and NOX 
emissions.
    In order to address a timely implementation of BART, as described 
in Section III B. 5. of this notice, Delaware's Regulation 1146--
Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation was determined to 
be better than BART for NOX and SO2 emissions. 
The first phase of the emission limits became effective in 2009 and 
second phase will become effective in 2012. The BART limitation will 
become effective no later than January 1, 2013, for the PM control 
strategies identified in Section III.B.5.c.
    States were required to reduce SO2 emissions from the 
highest emission stacks in the eastern U.S. by 90 percent or if it was 
infeasible to achieve that level of reduction, an alternative had to be 
identified which could include other point sources. Delaware's 
Conective Edge Moor Unit 5 and NRG Indian River Units 1-4 are five of 
the 167 units identified by MANE-VU as having the highest emissions in 
the eastern United States. The 2002 base year SO2 emissions 
from these five units are 22,121 tons per year. A 90% SO2 
emission reduction of these five units would result in 19,909 tons per 
year. However, the 2018 SO2 emission reductions that 
resulted from the implementation of Regulation 1146 for these five 
units is 16,662 tons per year. These reductions are not enough to 
satisfy the 90% emission reduction from the 2002 baseline requirements. 
However, Delaware considered all of the emission reductions from all 
the other units obtained through the implementation of Regulation 
1146--Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation and this 
resulted in 23,826 tons per year, which produced a surplus of 3,917 
tons per year of SO2 emission reductions.
    The low sulfur fuel oil strategy has four requirements for the 
State of Delaware. These requirements are to reduce the distillate oil 
to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) no later than 
2012, 4 residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight no later than 
2012, 6 residual oil to 0.3-0.5% sulfur by weight no later 
than 2012, and further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to 
15 ppm by 2016. Table 3 shows the SO2 emission reductions 
that would result from the implementation of a low sulfur fuel oil 
strategy in Delaware compared to the

[[Page 27982]]

existing currently implemented regulations.

                         Table 3--Reasonable Progress Goal--Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2018 SO[ihel2]           2018 SO[ihel2]
                                                                 emissions  reductions     emissions  increase/
                 Low sulfur fuel oil strategy                    (TPY) based on the low   reduction (TPY) based
                                                                    sulfur fuel oil        on existing  control
                                                                    strategy request             measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual Fuel Oil (assumes 0.5% sulfur).......................                    1,445                    -1271
Distillate (15 ppm sulfur)....................................                    1,205                       95
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................                    2,650                   -1,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Table 3, Delaware has a deficiency of 1,176 tons per 
year of SO2 emissions. However, as noted above Delaware has 
a surplus of SO2 emission reductions of 3,917 tons per year 
resulting from the implementation of Regulation 1146. This surplus 
accounts for the SO2 emission reductions needed to meet the 
requirements of the low sulfur fuel strategy.
    Delaware identified several measures that demonstrate their efforts 
to continued evaluation of other control measure to reduce 
SO2 and NOX. Delaware's Executive Order 31 
requires their Energy Task Force to expand the diversity of fuels used 
to meet Delaware's current and future energy resources, develop 
conservation programs to reduce the need to build more electric 
generation facilities, ensure that energy infrastructure will meet 
Delaware's future needs for efficiently transporting energy resources, 
and encourage producers of clean energy technologies and producers of 
energy efficient products to locate their business operations in 
Delaware.
5. BART
    BART is an element of Delaware's LTS. The BART RH requirement 
consists of three components: (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.
    The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the 
BART eligible sources. The BART eligible sources were identified by 
utilizing the criteria in the BART Guidelines as follows:
     Determine whether one or more emissions units at the 
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART 
Guidelines (70 FR 39158-39159);
     Determine whether the emission unit(s) was in existence on 
August 7, 1977 and begun operation after August 6, 1962;
     Determine whether potential emissions of SO2, 
NOX, and PM10 from subject units are 250 tons or 
more per year.
    The BART guidelines recommend addressing SO2, 
NOX, and PM10 as visibility-impairment pollutants 
and leave it up to the discretion of states to evaluate VOC or ammonia 
emissions. Because of the lack of tools available to estimate emissions 
and subsequently model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility, and 
because Delaware is aggressively addressing VOCs through its ozone 
SIPs, Delaware determined that SO2, NOX and 
PM10/2.5 are the only reasonable contributing visibility 
impairing pollutants to target under BART. Delaware identified four 
BART eligible sources (consisting of five emission units). One of the 
four sources is a steel mill and the other three sources are electric 
generating units as described in Table 4.

                                    Table 4--Delaware's BART Eligible Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Plant capacity in   Unit capacity in
        Facility and unit              megawatts           megawatts          Pollutants           Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NGR Indian River--Unit 3........   750.............  114...............  SO2, NOX, PM......  Dover.
Conectiv Edge Moor--Unit 4 and    > 750.............  177 and 446.......  SO2, NOX, PM......  Wilmington.
 Unit 5.
Ezrac Claymont Steel--Electric    Not Applicable....  Not Applicable....  SO2, NOX, PM......  Claymont.
 Arc Furnace and Reheater.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 are subject to 
BART. 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). Consistent with the MANE-VU Board's decision 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. Delaware identified each of its BART eligible sources 
as subject to BART.
    One of the BART eligible facilities in Delaware the Ezrac Claymont 
Steel, is a relatively small emissions source with potential emissions 
that exceeded the statutory threshold of 250 tons per year or more, but 
the actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants of well under 
250 tons per year. The steel mill requested a limit on its potential to 
emit, to bring its emissions under 250 tons per year threshold for BART 
sources. Delaware established federally enforceable terms and 
conditions in a Title V permit for the Reheat Furnace and Electric Arc 
Furnace at Evraz Claymont Steel Mill that limit the potential to emit 
for SO2, NOX, and PM10 to less than 
250 tons per year. In the future if Evrac Claymont Steel request an 
increase in NOX, SO2 and PM emissions greater 
than 250 tons per year

[[Page 27983]]

of any one of these pollutants the facility would become subject to 
BART.
    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 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. Section (e)(2) of the Regional Haze Rule 
provides that a State may opt to implement an emissions trading program 
or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to 
BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the State must 
demonstrate that the emissions trading program or other alternative 
measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved 
through the installation and operation of BART.
    The three sources in Delaware that the State found to be subject to 
BART are EGUs. As discussed below, Delaware chose to address the BART 
requirements for SO2 and NOX for these sources 
through an alternative program that limits emissions from all coal-
fired and residual oil-fired electric generating units with a nameplate 
of 25 MW or greater. As this alternative program does not address PM 
emissions, Delaware conducted BART analyses for PM for the three 
sources subject to BART.
Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides
    In order to determine appropriate NOX and SO2 
emission rates for inclusion in Regulation 1146, Delaware collected 
guidance and information from a number of sources to assist in its 
evaluation of appropriate emissions limits. The methods Delaware used 
to develop Regulation 1146 incorporate many of the criteria used in the 
5 factor analyses required by the Regional Haze Rule and included the 
following: (1) Control technology effectiveness; (2) capital costs; (3) 
complexity with regards to application on cycling units; (4) changes in 
plant auxiliary loads; (5) impact on plant operations and flexibility; 
(6) operation and maintenance costs; (7) size of the affected units; 
and (8) expected remaining operating life of the affected units.
    Of the eight units subject to Delaware's Regulation 1146, four have 
been identified as BART units. Regulation 1146 incorporates emissions 
rate limitations based on a suite of emission reduction technology 
capabilities, but do not specify or require the installation of any 
particular emission reduction technology or suite of technologies. 
Table 5 shows Delaware promulgated emission rate limitations for 
NOX and SO2 in Regulation 1146.

           Table 5--Regulation 1146 Emission Rate Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2009                2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX--Coal and Residual Oil Fired  0.15 lb/MMBTU.....  0.125 lb/MMBTU.
 EGU's.
SO2--Coal Fired EGU's...........  0.37 lb/MMBTU.....  0.26 lb/MMBTU.
SO2--Residual Oil Fired EGU's...  0.5% Sulfur Fuel    0.5% Sulfur Fuel
                                   Oil.                Oil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above rate limits, all pounds per one million British 
Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) limits are continuous and based on a rolling 
24-hour averaging period, that began on May 1, 2009. For the sulfur in 
fuel oil limits, facilities are not permitted to accept fuel oil with 
sulfur content greater than 0.5% by weight on or after January 1, 2009.
    Delaware did a comparison of Regulation 1146 emission rate limits 
of all eight units regulated by this rule to the BART presumptive 
limits for the four BART subject units. This comparison shown in Tables 
6 for SO2 and Table 7 for NOX demonstrates that 
because Regulation 1146 emissions rate limits are applicable to a fleet 
of units larger than the Delaware BART subject units, the total 
emissions reductions achieved by Regulation 1146, greatly exceed that 
which would be achieved through application of presumptive BART 
emissions rate limits on BART subject units only.

                               Table 6--Facility Emission Scenario for SO2 in Tons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012 Reg 1146   Presumptive BART
                         Facility                               2002 SO2             SO2               SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge Moor.................................................            10,527             3,896             7,619
Indian River..............................................            19,956             3,416            15,598
McKee Run.................................................               700               480               960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table 7--Facility Emission Scenario for NOX in Tons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012 Reg 1146   Presumptive BART
                         Facility                               2002 NOX             NOX               NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge Moor.................................................             3,307             1,464             3,570
Indian River..............................................             4,491             1,643             4,668
McKee Run.................................................               345               120               345
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Particulate Matter
    Delaware required the BART facilities to conduct an analysis of 
potential BART control in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). Each 
facility began by identifying all available retrofit control 
technologies and then eliminating all technically infeasible options. 
The control options considered for all of the EGUs included wet 
electrostatic precipitators, dry electrostatic precipitators, and

[[Page 27984]]

baghouses. However, for Unit 3 at the McKee Run and Unit 5 at the Edge 
Moor facilities, the two EGUs that use oil as their primary fuel, a 
switch to lower sulfur fuels and/or natural gas were also considered as 
potential BART control options.
    The McKee Run Unit 3 is a 102 MW Riley Stoker boiler fired on No. 6 
fuel oil with natural gas used as a back-up fuel. The boiler is 
equipped with a mechanical multi-cyclone used as a control device for 
particulate matter, and equipped with low NOX burners and 
fan boost over-fire air to control NOX emissions. The sulfur 
content of the No. 6 fuel oil is limited to no greater than 1.0 
percent, which restricts SO2 and particulate matter 
emissions. The boiler exhausts through a stack 200 feet tall and 
produces steam to power a 102 MW electric generator. For this unit, 
Delaware determined a sulfur limit of 0.5% as BART for PM, which will 
reduce PM emissions by approximately 50%, is cost-effective, and has no 
significant energy or non-air quality environmental benefits or dis-
benefits.
    The Edge Moor Unit 4 is a nominal 175 MW dry-bottom, pulverized 
coal (primary fuel), tangentially-fired boiler equipped with low-
NOX coal burners (LNB) and overfire air (OFA) for the 
control of NOx emissions and an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for 
the control of filterable particulate emissions. Unit 4 is currently 
permitted to burn coal with a sulfur content of up to 1.0% wt. and 
Delaware determined that the dry sorbent injection system (DSI) is BART 
for PM since the existing ESP is effective at reducing particulate 
matter emissions, and the addition of the DSI system will reduce 
condensable emissions.
    The Edge Moor Unit 5 is a nominal 445 MW residual oil-fired 
(primary fuel) boiler with oil LNB and OFA for the control of NOx 
emissions and a multicylone for the control of filterable particulates. 
Unit 5 is currently permitted to burn oil with a sulfur content of up 
to 1.0% wt. and Delaware determined a sulfur limit of 0.5% as BART for 
PM. This will reduce PM emissions by approximately 50%, is cost-
effective and has no significant energy or non-air quality 
environmental benefits or dis-benefits.
    The Indian River Unit 3 is a coal-fired, 165 MW EGU equipped with 
cold-side ESP. Delaware determined that the existing control 
electrostatic precipitators for PM is BART since it is effective at 
reducing particulate matter emissions and none of the other PM control 
options evaluated were cost-effective.

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, and 
was 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 were 
also in attendance. 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.
    On April 28, 2008, Delaware submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to 
the relevant FLMs for review and comment pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(2). In a letter dated June 17, 2008, the FLM provided 
comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the FLMs were addressed and 
incorporated in Delaware's SIP revision.
    On September 23, 2008, Delaware took its Regional Haze SIP out for 
public hearing and only one comment was received and it indicated 
general agreement with the proposed SIP revision. To address the 
requirement for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Delaware commits in their SIP to ongoing 
consultation with the FLMs on Regional Haze issues throughout the 
implementation.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Delaware has 
committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the form of 
a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the initial 
submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress report will 
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the Brigantine National 
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, located in New Jersey.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Delaware State 
Implementation Plan submitted by the State of Delaware through the 
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control on 
September 25, 2008 that addresses regional haze for the first 
implementation period. EPA is proposing to make a determination that 
the Delaware Regional Haze SIP contains the emission reductions needed 
to achieve Delaware's share of emission reductions agreed upon through 
the regional planning process. Furthermore, Delaware's Regional Haze 
Plan ensures that emissions from the State will not interfere with the 
reasonable progress goals for neighboring states' Class I areas. 
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find that this revision meets the 
applicable visibility related requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2) 
including but not limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 
relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has determined that the 
Regional Haze Plan submitted by the State of Delaware satisfies the 
requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking this action pursuant to those 
provisions of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues 
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before 
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive

[[Page 27985]]

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule approving Delaware's Regional Haze 
Plan does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved 
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it 
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or 
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-11839 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```