### R ecommendations for Improved Implementation of the Regional Haze Program
USDA Forest Service May 2014

The Federal Land Managers (FLMs) are responsible for protecting resources in mandatory Class I federal areas; however, the FLMs do not have regulatory authority under the Regional Haze Rule to control air emissions that impair visibility. As partners in achieving the Clean Air Act goals, we emphasize the importance of EPA

- FLM collaboration, in addition to regulatory consultation. We encourage earlier and better communication as we move forward into the next regional haze planning cycle.

USDA FS recommendations for improving the Regional Haze Program are explained below.



### I. Focus on Controllable Anthropogenic Emissions Sources

Under the Clean Air Act, State s have jurisdiction over specific categories of emissions sources. The Regional Haze Rule directs States to implement reasonable controls to reduce man

- made impairment towards achieving the national visibility goal. However, there exist anthr opogenic

sources of air pollution outside of a State’s ability to regulate, such as emissions originating in other countries. Situations also exist where episodic natural emissions, such as volcanic eruptions, dust storms, or wildfires, greatly overshadow the man

- m ade sources within the regulatory agencies’ control. Control of prescribed fire should consider climate change vulnerability and potential effects on wildfire potential

.
Current EPA Guidance for Tracking Progress 1 does not distinguish visibility impacts attributable to sources within State/Tribal jurisdiction from those caused by emission sources outside the agencies’ control. When outside anthropogenic or episodic natural emissions dominate selection of 20 th percentile worst days, the benefits to visibil ity from anthropogenic emission reductions implemented by States are more difficult to demonstrate. The same happens when episodic natural emissions are not fully reflected in the estimate of natural conditions. The effective result is that, notwithstandin g substantial reductions in emissions, a State’s regional haze progress demonstration may fail to show an equivalent improvement in visibility.

EPA guidance to focus on controllable anthropogenic emissions will allow States’ efforts in the next planning c ycle to be more efficiently directed to evaluating and implementing emissions control strategies. We also recommend that each State first conduct a visibility source contribution assessment. This is essential to defining the pollutants and source categorie s to address.

1 See EPA Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program June 1, 2007.Recommendations:

**•** In addition to the regulatory glide path , allow States and Tribes the option to define a glide path from current visibility conditions to no man

- made visibility impairment that accounts for impairment due to episodic natural events and due to anthropogenic sources outside the agencies’ regulatory control.

**•** Modeling methods can be used in addition to monitoring data to focus the visibility demonstration on the days with the highest impairment attributed to controllable anthropo genic emissions.

**•** When considering contribution of wildland prescribed fire and any potential control measures, Executive Order issued on November 1, 2013, guides that federal policies that can increase vulnerability of natural systems and natural resources to climate change related risks be reformed . EPA discussion of controllable emissions should consider this Executive Order and the Pre amble discussion to the Regional Haze Rule.

### II. Provide Alternative “Default” Approach to Meet Reasonable Progress
Goals

40 CFR §51.308(d)(1) requires States/Tribes to establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. In the first regional haze planning cycle, States, Tribes, EPA, FLMs, and other stakeholders promoted div erse definitions of “reasonable” visibility goals. This caused resource intensive planning, ongoing debate over control decisions, and long

- delayed SIP submittals.

We concur with DOI’s suggest ion that EPA define an alternative approach which includes Stat e

specific emissions targets

, supported by sufficient data for States to complete a four

- factor analysis. The EPA

- default approach would be set at levels sufficient to achieve reasonable

progress for the controllable anthropogenic emissions within a State ’s jurisdiction . Targets would give States/Tribes adequate flexibility to exercise self

- governance, yet, if achieved, would result in “reasonable” progress for regional haze purposes. If a State implements its EPA default, then the expectations for success will be more certain, and plan development, review and approval will be streaml ined. States not opting for the EPA default alternative would retain the existing §51.308(d)(1) process , which evaluate s control measures for all source categories to define

re asonable progress goals. If States opt not to use the default alternative, the considerations discussed in Section III become increasingly important.

We have explored candidate methods for creating emissions based targets. Targets could be in the form of State

- wide emission reduction or through visibility improvements that are specific to the Class I areas in each State (e.g., a linear reduction from the current condition to the 2064 goal). We are interested in working with EPA to develop this concept.

Recommendations:

**•** Develop EPA

- default alternative approaches for States/Tribes to meet reasonable progress requirements.

**•** Where possible, develop presumptive control levels for specific source categories.

**•** Where possible, develop control technology guideline s for specific source categories that states could use for candidate technologies for various source categories

.

**•** Involve FLM agencies, and potentially other stake holders, in evaluating candidate methods.

**•** States should be given the opportunity to define prescribed fire emissions as part of natural background per the RHR Preamble which stated “...EPA believes States should be permitted to consider some amount of fire in the calculation [of natural background] to reflect the fact that some prescribed fire effects serve merely to offset what would be expected to occur naturally ( 64 FR 37535

- 35736 ) . This prescribed fire level and any proposed controls should consider climate change related risks and potential contribution to wildfire risk and severity.

### III. Clarify Methods to Evaluate Reasonable Control Measures

40 CFR §51.308(d)(1)(i) instructs St ates to consider the four factors

- costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non

- air q uality environmental impacts of compliance and the remaining useful life of any potentially affe cted sources

- and to include a demonstratio n of how these factors were taken into considerat ion in selecting the reasonable

progress (RP) goal

.
A “subject

- to” process similar to BART has been suggested as a potential method to determine if an individual source or small group of sources should be considered for controls under reasonable progress

. In our interpretation, the “subject

- to” process of BART was mandated by the American Corn Growers’ court decision which allow s fo r States to determine which source(s) “ may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in

any mandatory Class I Federal area ” to be con sistent with the BART requirements in Section 169A ( b )(2) (A) of the Clean Air Act

. The concept of a “subject

- to” analysis for RP under this context implies a “cause or contribute” test for visibility i mpairment for individual or small groups of sources , which is not directly supported unde r 169A(b)(2)(B) and could create i nconsistencies with the intent of the long

- term strategy component of the R egional H aze R ule by placing emphasis on a single source RP review rather than approaches which look at the collective benefit across many sources

. 2

Our concern lies in applying recommendations embodied within Appendix Y or the Federal Land Managers Air Quality Rela ted Values Work Group (FL AG) Phase I Guidance without consideration to the methods/tools and thresholds recommended and how it would be employed within the RP context. We believe that recommending what is essentially a “cause or contribute” test will enco urage States or EPA to exempt individual major and minor sources with smaller individual impacts, but if considered collectively in the same manner as mobile and area

sources, 3 would have significantly greater visibility impacts, and thus potential for greater visibility benefit from emissions controls. 4 EPA has already approved the use of the Q/D approach for RP “screening” and as a pseudo

- benefit metric for several SIPs and F IPs using thresholds recommended in FLAG 2010

. 5

Thi s overemphasis of a single source approach unnecessarily risks impeding the attainment of RP goals by artificially restricting the pool of stationary sources to be considered for emissions controls under the long

- term strategy . Rather, it should be implemented in a manner which reflects the need for cumulative emissions controls

. First, we assume that the BART process of the first planning cycle will have addressed ma ny of the older sources with uncontrolled emissions , and that many sources constructed after 1977 were subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emiss ion limits.

2 See 64 FR 35735. “The State should review all such sources in identifying the emission reduction measures to be included in the strategy.”
3 See 64 FR 35735. “ Depending on the nature of the visibility problem, road dust and other area sources may at times make a significant contribution to visibility impairment. States should include area sources in emission inventories and control str ategy analyses as warranted. ”

4 See 64 FR 35735. “The EPA believes that States should take th e cumulative emissions from minor sources into account in developing their regional haze long

- term strategies.”

5 See 77 FR 24609, 78 FR 34763

.As a result , many of the post

- 1977 sources , whether major or minor so urces, have emissions levels which represent more efficient processes a nd better control technology and generally would have smaller corresponding visibility impacts as compared to BART sources

. Individually, it is reasonable to conjecture that many of th ese sources would have corresponding Q/D ratios or modeled impacts that would fall below the respective “significance” thresholds outlined in FLAG 2010 or Appendix Y. Thus, at a minimum, any threshold recommended as part of a “subject

- to” RP process would need to be adjusted to reflect a smaller threshold recognizing the need to evalu ate cumulative emissions controls for the long term strategy requirements of the RHR

.
The lack of specificity in the BART guideline s in modeling led to the use multiple of versions of the CALPUFF modeling system. Prior to June 2007, at least four different versions of the CALPUFF modeling system were employed (5.711a, 5.756, 6.112, and 6.221). Subsequent EPA technical review of the underlying model code found errors which had the potential to significantly affe ct model results in the latter three versions. 6

, 7 In 2010, a new version introduced substantive modifications to the CALPUFF chemical mechanism (versions 6.34 and 6.42) which fundamentally altered the model predictions and virtually eliminated source impacts compared to the EPA approved version (5.8). The updated model was use d by large EGUs in BART determinations in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. EPA found itself having to defend use of different versions. 8 The same practice will ultimately develop if EPA develops any modeling based guidance surrounding future RP determinations. We recommend that any such future guidance provide greater specificity to avoid similar issues.

Visibility benefit has also been suggest ed as a factor available to States to better understand the effect and has been employed by EPA in a number of RP evaluations, absent any clear statutory mandate to do so. 9 We are concerned that the use of benefit as a fifth factor in RP determinations places undue emphasis on a single source approach to RP determinations rather than focusing upon cumulative emissions as has been suggested in the Regional Haze Rule. We

recom mend that future guidance for RP determinations be confined to the four statutory factors outlined in the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR §51.308(d)(1)(i).

EPA RP guidance suggested use of the dollar per deciview metric which merges estimates of costs and degree of visibility improvement as a potential metric for the first statutory factor

–

6 See EPA Assessment of the “VISTAS” Version of the CALPUFF Modeling System , EPA

- 454/R

- 08

- 007, August 2008.

7 See FR 76 52431. “ Based on our review of the available evidence we do not consider the models to have been shown to be sufficiently documented, technically valid, and reliable for use in a BART decision making process. In addition, the availabl e evidence w ould not support approval of these models for current regulatory use. There are known technical problems with CALPUFF 6.112 and furthermore, the development of new model versions requires technical and policy evaluations to ensure the models meet regulator y requirements .”

8 See 76 FR 52431. “The commenter indicated that a revised version of the model is available and submitted modeling analyses using CALPUFF model Versions 6.112 and 6.4. The newer version(s) of CALPUFF have not received the level of revie w required for use in regulatory actions subject to EPA approval and consideration in a BART decision making process.”
9 See 77 FR 24066. “ We have also considered an additional factor: The modeled visibility benefits of controls . We evaluated
this factor for Colstrip Units 3 and 4, due to the size of Colstrip Units 3 and 4 in comparison with the other RP sources. For the

more cost

- effective option (SNCR), the modeled visibility benefits are relatively modest. For the more expensive option (SCR), the modele d visibility benefits, although more substantial, are not sufficient for us to consider it reasonable to impose this option in this planning period. Therefore, we are proposing that no additional NO X controls will be required for this planning period on C olstrip Unit 3.”cost of compliance

. 10 However, EPA has not established a threshold, required or recommended, below which such value is considered reasonable and above which it is considered unreasonable. As in the case of “subject

- to” discussion above, careful consideration should be given t o any benefit based metric to reflect the lower threshold necessary for cumulative consideration.

Recommendations:

**•** Update EPA RP guidance to further emphasize collective or source category approach to future RP analyses ; however, if single source approaches are used, update the guidance to better reflect analytical methods and metrics based upon the discussion above.

**•** Update EPA methods for calculating control costs.

**•** Develop an emissions control technology clearinghouse that provides summary of engineering data for emissions control decisions related to regional haze.

**•** Provide guidance regarding when and how to consider visibility benefit of emissions controls which reflects need for collective analysis

.

10 See EPA Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program June 1, 2007. “Therefore, in assessing additional emissions reduction strategies for source categories or individual, large scale sources, simple cos t effectiveness estimates based on a dollar

- per

- ton calculation may not be as meaningful as a dollar

- per

- deciview calculation, especially if the strategies reduce different groups of pollutants.”

### IV. Promote Timely Submission of SIPs.

The fi rst round of regional haze SIPs suffered from a protracted lack of timeliness. This was further complicated by lawsuits to compel EPA to first issue findings of failure to submit, and then three years later to either approve SIPs or promulgate FIPs. EPA a nd FLM resources were stretched by multiple years of SIP review, litigation, and multiple FIPs. Unlike the NAAQS SIP development requirements, the Regional Haze Rule did not encourage timely submittal and review of implementation plans. With only the occas ional use of FIPs and casual mention of “discretionary sanc tions ” and no tangible regulatory backstop, there was no external impetus for states to submit their haze SIPs on time. We encourage EPA to explore using discretionary penalties for failure to submit.

The practical result of untimely submission of SIPs and subsequent court ordered deadlines was

two

- fold. First, due to a lack of interregional consistency in the application of BART guidelines and its under lying modeling and engineering principals, and also the hard deadlines imposed by the consent decree schedule, EPA was forced in a number of cases to either employ questionable analysis methods to support FIPs or adopt flawed state determinations outright. 11 Second, in the collective rush to publish SIP approvals or FIPs by the court ordered deadlines, the normal FLM consultation process had to be reduced or abandoned altogether.

We believe that the “default” alternative RP approach presented by USFWS and NPS on December 5, 2013, provides a unique alt ernative that could streamline the SIP development process and promote more timely submission of SIPs.

Recommendations:

**•** Promote RP “default” alternative as an “off

- ramp” opportunity to States

.

**•** Develop a team of regional haze practitioners to evaluate the elements of the Regional Haze rule that may consume resources with little benefit to SIP development.

**•** Consider use of discretionary sanctions associated with delayed SIP submission.

11 See 78 FR 8720. “The BART Guidelines instruct EPA to conduct modeling using CALPUFF or other appropriate dispersion models for each source and highlight the importance of source

- specific features, such as stack flow rate and release height. EPA's use of ``visibility impact ratios'' derived from other sources is not consi stent with EPA's own guidelines and provides results that are too unreliable for the purpose of a BART visibility analysis. In using the visibility impact ratio approach, EPA is holdi ng it self to a lower standard th an it would expect from a state air quality agency conducting a similar BART review. ”

### V. Clarification of Reas onable Attribution of Visibility Impairment (RAVI) Regulations

40 CFR § 302 through 306 contain the reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) requirements to address visibility impairment from one or a small number of sources. While much of the focus of the regional haze process has been on the requirements contained at 40
CFR § 51. 308

, we would like to remind EPA that the RAVI provisions are currently in f ull effect
and it is very important that they remain as such. We view these requirements as a critical backstop to address any source that is not addressed under 40 CFR § 51.308 requirements.

The plan requirements that come out of a RAVI certification are similar but distinctly different
from 40 CFR § 51.308. For example, i n previous rulemakings

, EPA clearly recognized that best available retrofit technology (BART) under RAVI (40 CFR § 51.302) is different from regional haze BART (40 CFR § 51.308). EPA t erms them “regional haze BART” and “RAVI BART” in language in the federal register. While regional haze BART is only done once, RAVI BART requirements at 40 CFR § 51.302(c)(1) state “ The affected Federal Land Manager may certify to the State, at any time

, that there exists reasonably attributable impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. ” RAVI BART can change because the control technology determination is made at a certain point in time. As technology evolves, a source that previou sly found no applicable pollution control technology may later find one that is applicable. It is exactly this situation that is anticipated at 40 CFR § 51.302(c)(4)(v) where the Administrator may require a BART analysis “ at such times... as new technology for control of the pollutant becomes reasonably available... ”

. EPA also anticipates the possibility of a RAVI certification coming after submittal of the plans required under 40 CFR § 51.308 and how the overall pla nning cycle would be addressed

. 12

, 13

Further illustration o f EPA thoughts on these issues is contained in the CSAPR better than
BART final rule

. 77 FR 33642 states: “ In light of the fact that our proposal did not request The clear differentiation between RAVI BART and RH
BART was also seen in Minnesota where EPA approved Regional Haze BART for Xcel Sherco but specifically said they have not yet addressed BART for the RAVI certif ication.” 77 FR 3689
also states “ The RAVI ru les at 40 CFR 51.302(c) require the determination of emission limits representing BART for certified facilities. A BART determination under the RAVI is similar to, but independent from the BART determination made under the RHR. EPA views Minnesota’s
submit tal as addressing regional haze as regulated under 40 CFR 51.308 and not RAVI as regulated under 40 CFR 51.302 to 51.306. Therefore, this proposed rule only addresses satisfaction of regional haze requirements and does not address whether Minnesota’s plan addresses requirements that apply as a result of the certification of Sherco as a RAVI source. EPA will act on RAVI BART in a separate notice. ”

12 See 40 CFR § 51.306(c)

13 See 77 FR 3685.comment on the interplay of the RAVI requirements in 40 CFR 51.302

– 306 with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, we are not adopting any clarifying interpretation at this

time. As a result, this rulemaking alters neither the authority of a federal land manager to certify reasonably attributable visibility impairment nor the obligation of states (or EPA) to respond to a RAVI certification under 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart P (Protectio n of Visibility). Whatever the form, we intend to provide an opportunity for public comment before applying a new interpretation. In this final action we are preserving the language in the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) that allows states to include in their SIPs geographic enhancements to the trading program to accommodate a situation where BART is required based on RAVI at a Class I area. We are not adopting any clarifying interpretation of this language at this time, but we expect at a later date to clarify the scope of the RAVI requirements through a rule amendment, general guidance, or action on a SIP or FIP in the c ontext of a specific RAVI

case. ”

Recommendations:

**•** In the spirit of cooperative rulemaking

, please inform the Forest Service early on of any efforts within EPA to limit our authority under RAVI.