EO 12866 13563 Review: Interagency Comments EPA Regional Haze 

NPRM

Kymn, Christine J. to: Phil Lorang 12/20/2011 06:18 PM

Cc:

Martha Keating, Rhea Jones, Todd Hawes, Paula VanLare, 

Joseph-J Dougherty, Alan Rush, Kelly Rimer, Pam Long, "Laity, 

Jim"

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

To: Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Martha Keating/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rhea Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Todd 

Hawes/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula VanLare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J 

Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kelly 

2 attachments

EO 13563 12866 Interagencycomments1 Better than BART.docx

EO 12866 13563 Interagencycomments2 Better than BART.docx

All, 

Thank you again for today's constructive call. Attached please find 

consolidated interagency comments, including suggested footnote language. We 

in turn have forwarded EPA's language insert and have asked reviewers to get 

back to us by NOON TOMORROW, WED. 12/21. Likewise, could EPA let us know if 

they are OK with the suggested footnote by that time?

Have a great evening all,

Christine

202.395.4638

-----Original Message-----

From: Phil Lorang [mailto:Lorang.Phil@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:29 PM

To: Kymn, Christine J.

Cc: Martha Keating; Rhea Jones; Todd Hawes; Paula VanLare; Joseph-J Dougherty; 

Alan Rush; Kelly Rimer; Pam Long

Subject: One more version per today's call - draft Federal Register notice for 

the rule titled " Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing 

Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals,...

The changes discussed today appear on pages 24 and 26, including a placeholder 

for the remaining sentence. There are a few other edits at page 13 from our 

end today to correct language about reasonable progress goals and long term 

strategies that was not worded precisely. This aligns page 13 with existing 

text on page 49 and makes clearer that we are not proposing any action related 

to reasonable progress goals and long term strategies in this notice.

(See attached file:

EO12866_RegionalHazeRevisions_2060-AR05_NPRM_20111019_REDLINE_12_20_11_version

6.docx)
Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor

Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA

919-541-5463
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 1 of 1

From page 24:

In this action we are also proposing a FIP for those Transport 

Rule states for which we already have or now are proposing a limited 

disapproval due to the termination of CAIR. For these states, the 

proposed FIP would replace reliance on the CAIR requirements with 

reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 

NOX emissions from EGUs and as a long-term strategy measure.

We are proposing to leave unchanged the final sentence of 

section 51.308(e)(4) in the regional haze regulations. This language 

allows a state to address BART, when it is required based on 

reasonable attribution of visibility impairment at a Class I area to 

a particular source, by including a geographic enhancement in its 

SIP. For example, a geographic enhancement in the form of adjusted 

allocations at a BART-subject source might take the place of sourcespecific emission rate limits. Use of a geographic enhancement in the 

context of reasonable attribution of visibility impairment at a Class 

I area will be addressed in separate EPA or state actions on a caseby-case basis in accordance with 40 CFR 51.306.1

 

1 Under section 51.302, the affected Federal Land Manager may certify that there exists reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (RAVI) in a mandatory Class I Federal area. This certification is an extraordinary measure to address localized 

impacts due to a specific source or sources. EPA and Federal Land Managers are working together on the above language 

to clarify and preserve the RAVI process, including source-specific BART, within the better than BART construct for 

regional haze. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency 

Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1

Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP 

Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans.

• The commenter notes the draft rule may have an unintended consequence of placing 

an added burden on the Federal Land Managers who would have to facilitate any 

certification of Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI). Commenters 

are concerned that the RAVI certification process could be the only mechanism 

available to Federal Land Managers to press for geographic enhancements to 

Transport Rule emission allocations. 

• Several commenters supported EPA’s interpretation and application of its two 

pronged test for making a “better than BART” determination. Commenters felt that 

EPA reasonably interprets its statutory duty as established in the existing regulation1

and applies the test in a manner consistent with prior practice. In addition, this 

approach was upheld as a “reasonable notion of reasonable progress” when EPA 

made the determination that states could rely on CAIR as a better than BART 

alternative (see pp. 17-18 of preamble for further discussion). 

• Several commenters alternatively suggested that EPA reconsider or reword its 

interpretation of the 1st prong of the two pronged criteria for making a “better than 

BART” determination. The commenters note that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) requires EPA 

to analyze “differences in visibility between the BART and trading programs.” The 

commenters feel EPA applied the 1st prong test only to ensure that the Transport Rule 

alone, without any consideration of the replaced BART, would not have a negative 

effect on visibility at any Class I area, and that this is not the correct interpretation of 

the statute. 

 1 Section III C 1 of the preamble to the draft NPRM cites the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(3) to describe EPA’s criteria for comparing visibility progress of an alternative program to 

BART. The regulatory text from 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) sets two specific criteria as: 

(3) A State which opts under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) to implement an emissions trading program or 

other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and 

maintain BART may satisfy the final step of the demonstration required by that section as follows: 

If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative 

measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to 

achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the 

State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and 

the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The 

modeling would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following two criteria 

are met:

(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and

(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average 

differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.
2

2

Commenters also suggested that EPA reconsider its 2nd prong interpretation and 

recommended that EPA reconsider the 2nd criteria as described above and evaluate 

how individual State adoption of the Transport Rule will impact the Class I areas that 

each State’s emissions affect. 

The commenters interpreted the language to imply that the evaluation method 

requires States to either evaluate total emission differences between BART and a 

trading program or conduct air quality modeling to evaluate “overall improvement” at 

affected areas. By expanding the “overall improvement” area to include all eastern or 

all continental U.S. Class I areas, the commenters were concerned that EPA may have

created the unexpected consequence of suggesting that no control in some states is 

better than, or as good as, significant controls which would have resulted from 

BART. Further, commenters were concerned that EPA modeling results may smooth 

out individual Class I area “declines” as well as downplay the significance of large 

emission reductions on the western edge that would result from presumptive BART 

controls. As examples, commenters anticipate the following possible state-specific 

outcomes: Kansas completed BART determinations for EGUs subject to BART in its 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, and EPA has proposed to approve Kansas’ 

Plan (76 FR 52604). If Kansas’ emissions allowance under the Transport Rule will 

not require these EGUs to install controls; commenters interpret the two pronged test 

as indicating emissions under the Transport Rule are greater than emissions under 

BART. The commenters note a similar circumstance in Nebraska. Commenters felt 

that lesser-or-no additional controls under the Transport Rule cannot produce better 

visibility progress than greater emission reductions of, at a minimum, presumptive 

BART. Commenters note that EPA modeling indicates that visibility on the 20% 

worst days at Badlands, Wind Cave, and Theodore Roosevelt National Parks is 

projected to be poorer under the Transport Rule than under BART. 

• Several commenters noted that EPA’s TSD supports a finding of better than BART. 

More specifically, the analysis in Section 3.6 of the TSD supports the determination 

that CSAPR provides greater average visibility improvement at affected Class I areas 

as compared to the “Nationwide BART” scenario.

Table 3-6. Summary of average visibility results for Eastern and nationwide areas.

Transport 

Rule – 2014 

Base Case 

20% Best Days

Transport Rule 

– 2014 Base 

Case

20% Worst 

Days

Nationwide 

BART – 2014 

Base Case

20% Best 

Days

Nationwide 

BART – 2014 

Base Case

20% Worst 

Days

Eastern Class I Areas 

Average

(60 Areas) 

-0.3 -1.6 -0.2 -1.0

All Class I Areas Average -0.1 -0.7 -0.1 -0.5
3

3

(140 Areas)

• Commenters requested further clarification of Section III C 4 of the draft NPRM 

(page 24) regarding 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) that allows states discretion to include 

geographic enhancements in their regional haze implementation plan for the BART 

analysis required to address RAVI. 

• Commenters also felt EPA was incorrect in finding that summertime nitrogen oxide 

(NOx) reductions aimed at reducing ozone pollution for those states whose coverage 

under the Transport Rule relates only to ozone issues are acceptable to address nitrate 

contributions to regional haze. Commenters further suggested that because nitrate 

particle concentrations are dependent on cooler temperatures and generally are 

elevated in the winter rather than the summer months, NOx controls that apply only 

during the summertime ozone season may not be appropriate to address wintertime 

nitrate impacts to visibility. As such commenters suggested that EPA treat the states 

of Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, separately from the 

remaining eastern states because those states were either subject to ozone only or are 

new additions to the Transport Rule that were not subject to the earlier Clean Air 

Interstate Rule. 

Figure 1 – Non-ozone season extinction budgets for Class I areas of South Central United States for period 2000 –

2009.
4

4

Figure 2 - Ozone season extinction budgets for Class I areas of South Central United States for period 2000 – 2009.

As shown in figure 1, NOx controls which are limited to ozone season will have little 

effect on reducing particulate nitrate levels during the period of the year when nitrate 

contribution to light extinction is greatest. Additionally, photochemical modeling results 

conducted by the CENRAP RPO for Class I sites in Oklahoma and Arkansas are 

examined figures 3 through 5. In each of these Class I areas, the modeling depicts that 

both observed and predicted nitrate are seasonally dependent, with highest nitrate 

prediction formed during the November through February timeframe, also outside the 

ozone season. Therefore, commenters request further clarity regarding scientific basis for 

allowing reliance of ozone season controls as a BART-alternative for Class I areas 

affected by nitrate as modeling and data analysis does not demonstrate that ozone season 

NOx controls would be an effective substitute for NOx BART. Commenters suggest that 

EPA require establishment of year round federally enforceable NOx emissions limitations 

to allow for states to rely upon CSAPR in lieu of BART requirements.
5

5

Figure 3 - Comparison of daily extinction (observed and predicted) for Upper Buffalo Class I area.
6

6

Figure 4 - Comparison of daily extinction (observed and predicted) for Caney Creek Class I area.
7

7

Figure 5 - Comparison of daily extinction (observed and predicted) for Wichita Mountains Class I area.
8

8

• Commenters expressed concern at the possibility that the draft rule creates 

subregions within the Transport Rule domain where emissions reductions under 

CSAPR could be significantly less than under BART. As shown in figure 6, the 

commenter estimates that a number of the new states west of the Mississippi 

River could have significantly greater SO2 emissions under CSAPR as compared 

to the BART case. The “Mississippi-West” subregion of the Transport Rule 

domain will have SO2 emissions 164% greater under CSAPR than would have 

been assumed by presumptive BART (Table 1).

Figure 6 – State by state SO2 emissions Under BART and Transport Rule (based upon Table 2-4 of TSD).
9

9

Table 1 – Subregional comparison of SO2 emissions between BART and CSAPR.

State 2014

Baseline

2014

BART

2014

CSAPR

Iowa 133.1 43.9 83.8

Kansas 69.8 19.8 49.1

Missouri 390.3 107.9 181.8

Nebraska 73.1 32.9 71.2

Arkansas 99.4 38.1 39.7

Oklahoma 138 41.4 41.4

Louisiana 118.2 81.2 92.6

Texas 453.3 139.3 266.6

Totals 1475.2 504.5 826.2

The commenter feels that BART controls for SO2 are an essential component to meeting 

the subregional progress goals for the Class I areas in and surrounding the “MississippiWest” subregion. The commenter’s analysis in figures Figures 7 and 8 depict the

commenter’s estimate of extinction budgets for the 20% best and worst days for the Class 

I areas to the west and northwest of the Transport Rule region. Under the commenter’s 

analysis, SO4 is the single largest component of the extinction budget for Class I areas in 

South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota, and is second only to Organic Carbon Mass 

(OMC) in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana on the haziest days. The commenter

further estimates that SO4 is the largest component of the extinction budget for all Class I 

areas on the cleanest days.
10

10

Figure 7 – Mean extinction budget for Class I areas on the northwest edge of the CSAPR domain for 20% Best Days, 

2000 – 2009.
11

11

Figure 8 – Mean extinction budget for Class I areas on the northwest edge of the CSAPR domain for 20% Worst 

Days, 2000 – 2009.

To further illustrate the importance of SO2 BART for these states within the “MississippiWest” subregion, the commenter examined source-specific BART modeling conducted 

by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and EPA Region 7 for the BART 

eligible units at the Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS) EGU in western Nebraska. Under 

the commenters CALPUFF and CAMx were run for this BART eligible source. 

According to the commenter’s analysis, shown in table 2, both CALPUFF and CAMx 

results show that the GGS facility predict a significant contribution (e.g. days greater than 

or equal to 0.5 ddv impact) on 55 and 85 (or 15% and 23%) of the days respectively.

Table 2 – Source specific BART modeling for Nebraska Gerald Gentleman EGU, 2002 meteorology.

CALPUFF CAMx

No. of Days > 0.5 ddv 55 85

No. of Days > 1.0 ddv 37 45

Impact at 98th Percentile 2.83 3.38

Maximum Impact 5.68 6.84

The commenter’s CAMx PSAT results for GGS show that SO2 is the single largest 

contributing pollutant to light extinction to the Badlands Class I area in South Dakota 

(figure 9), also underscoring the importance of SO2 BART for these “Mississippi-West” 

states. The commenter thus concludes CSAPR, BART becomes a “no control” 

alternative which creates significant concern if SO2 BART is not implemented in these 

states. 
12

12

Figure 9 – CAMx predicted component specific contribution to light extinction for Gerald Gentleman EGU in 

Nebraska for 2002.