
[Federal Register: March 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 50)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 13944-13962]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr11-18]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011--0131, FRL-9280-5]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and 
Interstate Transport Plan; Interference With Visibility Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first 
implementation period through 2018. This revision addresses the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') 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.
    In addition, we are proposing to approve certain portions of this 
Regional Haze SIP revision and a related SIP revision submitted by 
California on November 16, 2007, as meeting the requirements of CAA 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with other states' 
measures to protect visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before April 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2011--0131 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: Wamsley.Jerry@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Jerry Wamsley).
    4. Mail: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office 
(Air-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such deliveries are only accepted 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011--0131. Our policy is that EPA will include all comments received 
in the public docket without change. EPA may make comments available 
online at http://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 
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be 
CBI or otherwise protected. The http://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://www.regulations.gov, EPA will include your e-mail 
address as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and 
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information 
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket 
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the 
EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that you contact the 
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the 
docket Monday through Friday, 9-5:30 PST, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, U.S.E.P.A., Region 9, 
Air Division, Planning Office, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105; via telephone at (415) 947-4111; or via electronic 
mail at wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our,'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittals
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    E. Long Term Strategy
    F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably 
Attributable Visibility Impairment
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
IV. EPA's Analysis of the California Regional Haze Plan
    A. Affected Class I Areas in California
    B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress
    1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate

[[Page 13945]]

    C. California Emissions Inventories
    D. Sources of Visibility Impairment
    1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in California Class I Areas
    2. California Contributions to Visibility Impairment in Class I 
Areas Outside of the State
    E. Best Available Retrofit Technology Evaluation
    1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART
    2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility Impairment
    3. Sources Already Controlled to BART
    F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the Reasonable Progress 
Goals
    1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals
    2. Interstate Consultation
    G. Long-Term Strategy
    1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
    a. Mobile Source Programs
    b. Stationary and Area Source Regulations by Local Air Agencies
    2. Construction Activities
    3. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    4. Smoke Management Programs
    5. Enforceability of Measures in the Long-Term Strategy
    H. Monitoring Strategy
    I. Federal Land Manager Consultation and Coordination
    J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-year Progress Reports
V. EPA's Analysis of How California's Regional Haze Plan Meets 
Interstate Transport Requirements
VI. EPA's Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittals

    Today's proposed action concerns two submittals from California. 
The first submittal from the state is the California Regional Haze Plan 
(CRHP). The second submittal from the state is the 2007 Transport SIP, 
submitted as Appendix C to the State Strategy for California's 2007 
State Implementation Plan for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Details on both submittals 
follow below.
    The California Air Resource Board (ARB) submitted the California 
Regional Haze Plan (CRHP) to EPA on March 16, 2009.\1\ ARB submitted 
additional materials to EPA on September 8, 2009.\2\ After discussion 
with EPA staff regarding BART-eligible sources, ARB submitted updated 
information about these sources on June 9, 2010.\3\ ARB's March 16, 
2009 submittal includes public process documentation for the CRHP and 
documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held on January 22, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the following documents: Transmittal letter dated March 
16, 2009 from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air 
Resources Board, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator 
USEPA Region IX; and, State of California, Air Resource Board 
Resolution 09-4, dated January 22, 2009, adopting the California 
Regional Haze Plan.
    \2\ Transmittal letter dated September 8, 2009 from James N. 
Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to 
Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with 
attachments.
    \3\ Transmittal letter dated June 9, 2010 from James N. 
Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to 
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region IX, with 
attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 16, 2007, ARB submitted the State Strategy for 
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan to attain the 1997 8-hour 
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 State Strategy).\4\ Appendix C 
of the 2007 State Strategy, as modified by Attachment A,\5\ contains 
the ``Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 8-hour 
Ozone and PM2.5 to satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the State of California'' (2007 Transport 
SIP). The 2007 Transport SIP addresses the Transport SIP requirements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. ARB's November 16, 2007 submittal includes 
public process documentation for the 2007 State Strategy, including the 
2007 Transport SIP. In addition, the SIP revision includes 
documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held on September 27, 
2007 on the proposed 2007 State Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007, from James 
N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional 
Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution 
No. 07-28 (September 27, 2007).
    \5\ See ``Technical and Clarifying Modifications to April 26, 
2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board's Proposed State Strategy for 
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised 
Draft Appendices A through G,'' included as Attachment A to CARB's 
Board Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the portion of today's proposed action related to the 2007 
Transport SIP, we are proposing action only with regard to the section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement that the SIP must prohibit any source 
or other type of emissions activity in California from emitting 
pollutants that will interfere with another state's measures to protect 
visibility. EPA intends to act in separate proposals on other portions 
of California's 2007 Transport SIP that address the remaining elements 
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The other elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require 
that California emission sources do not (a) contribute significantly 
to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 
in any other State, (b) interfere with maintenance of these 
standards by any other State, and (c) interfere with measures 
required under Part C of the CAA to prevent significant 
deterioration of air quality in regard to these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of 
sources and activities located across a broad geographic area that emit 
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic 
carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (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 impacts, 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 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.\7\ 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 35715 (July 1, 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In section 169A(a)(1) of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress 
created a program to protect visibility in the nation's national parks 
and wilderness areas.\8\ This section of the

[[Page 13946]]

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 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'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. 
These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility 
impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a 
variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific knowledge 
about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment 
were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA and after consulting with 
the Department of the Interior, EPA 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, the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the 
existing visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and to establish a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
plan revision to the SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia and the Virgin Islands.\9\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to 
submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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 address effectively the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
coordinated strategies 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 Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), one of five RPOs 
nationally, is a voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal, and 
local air agencies dealing with air quality in the west. WRAP member 
states include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming. WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of 
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

D. Interstate Transport Pollution and Visibility Requirements

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and 
for PM2.5. See 62 FR 38856; 62 FR 38652. Section 
110(a)(1)requires states to submit a plan to address certain 
requirements for a new or revised NAAQS within three years after 
promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter time as EPA may 
prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new plan 
submissions must address, as applicable, including section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of certain 
emissions.
    On April 25, 2005, EPA issued a ``Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs 
for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS.'' 70 FR 21147. This included a finding that California and other 
states had failed to submit SIPs to address interstate transport of 
emissions affecting visibility and started a two-year clock for the 
promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA, unless the 
state made a submission to meet the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such submission. Id.
    On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidance on this topic 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'' (``2006 Guidance'').
    As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor'' 
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each state to 
have a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect other states 
in ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains 
four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate 
transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting 
pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to 
nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with 
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states; 
or, (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.
    With respect to establishing that emissions from sources in the 
state would not interfere with measures in other states to protect 
visibility, the 2006 Guidance recommended that states make a submission 
indicating that it was premature, at that time, to determine whether 
there would be any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for 
another state designed to ``protect visibility'' until the submission 
and approval of regional haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs were required to 
be submitted by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later point 
in time, however, EPA believes it is now necessary to evaluate such 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions from a state to ensure that the 
existing SIP, or the SIP as modified by the submission, contains 
adequate provisions to prevent interference with the visibility 
programs of other states, such as for consistency with the assumptions 
for controls relied upon by other states in establishing reasonable 
progress goals to address regional haze.
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the

[[Page 13947]]

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. Working together through 
a regional planning process, states 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, we anticipate that regional haze SIPs will contain 
measures that will achieve these emissions reductions, and that these 
measures will meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the west, all 
states in the WRAP 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 WRAP 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 western Class I areas. The modeling 
done by the WRAP 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 the WRAP, 
including reductions from installation of Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) at appropriate sources 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 draft and final 
regional haze SIPs that have now been prepared by states in the west 
accordingly are based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby 
states that were agreed on through the WRAP process.
    California's 2007 Transport SIP refers to EPA's 2006 Guidance and 
states that the Regional Haze SIP would address interstate regional 
haze impacts. We interpret this to mean that California intended its 
Regional Haze Plan to address the interstate visibility requirement of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, our evaluation of the 2007 
Transport SIP and whether it meets these CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
visibility requirements relies on our evaluation of relevant 
information from California's Regional Haze Plan.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    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 for 
measuring 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used to express reasonable progress goals (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 ten-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 (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/
ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the 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

[[Page 13948]]

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

    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) ten-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 reasonable progress goals (RPGs), states must 
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days 
over the (approximately) ten-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same 
period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and, (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, 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) (``EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance''). 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'' (URP) or the ``glide 
path'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate 
of progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress 
towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a 
rate of progress that 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

    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 \11\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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, 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 indicated 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. An 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described in the RHR as ``BART-eligible sources'', 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 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 EPA approves 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. States have the flexibility to choose the type of control 
measures they will use to meet the requirements of BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a ten-

[[Page 13949]]

to fifteen-year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 
51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a long-term 
strategy (LTS) in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 
of all control measures a state will use during the implementation 
period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS 
must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, 
and other measures needed to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' 
for all Class I areas within and 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 
contributing states 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 consultation 
between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate 
visibility issues (e.g., 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 RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and, (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordination of the Regional Haze SIP and Reasonably Attributable 
Visibility Impairment

    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 requires a monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on regional haze visibility 
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas within 
the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring 
strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 
requirement may be met through ``participation'' in the Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (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 
ten 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

    The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers 
(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 sixty 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. Furthermore, 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.

[[Page 13950]]

IV. EPA's Analysis of the California Regional Haze Plan

    As described in Section I, the California Regional Haze SIP 
consists of the CRHP and two supplemental submittals. ARB submitted the 
CRHP to EPA on March 16, 2009. ARB submitted additional materials to 
EPA on September 8, 2009. ARB submitted updated information about BART-
eligible sources on June 9, 2010.

A. Affected Class I Areas in California

    There are twenty-nine affected Class I areas in California.\12\ 
These Class I areas include the following national parks, national 
monuments, and wilderness areas managed by the U.S. National Park 
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (USBLM):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Figure 1-2, ``California's Class I Areas and IMPROVE 
Monitoring Network, page 1-4, CRHP, for a listing and a map showing 
the twenty-nine Class I areas.

    1. Redwood National Park;
    2. Marble Mountain Wilderness;
    3. Lava Beds National Monument;
    4. South Warner Wilderness;
    5. Thousand Lakes Wilderness;
    6. Lassen Volcanic National Park;
    7. Caribou Wilderness;
    8. Yolla Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness (includes land managed by 
USBLM);
    9. Point Reyes National Seashore;
    10. Ventana Wilderness;
    11. Pinnacles National Monument;
    12. Desolation Wilderness;
    13. Mokelumne Wilderness;
    14. Emigrant Wilderness;
    15. Hoover Wilderness;
    16. Yosemite National Park;
    17. Ansel Adams Wilderness;
    18. Kaiser Wilderness;
    19. John Muir Wilderness;
    20. Kings Canyon National Park;
    21. Sequoia National Park;
    22. Dome Lands Wilderness (includes land managed by the USBLM);
    23. San Rafael Wilderness;
    24. San Gabriel Wilderness;
    25. Cucamonga Wilderness;
    26. San Gorgonio Wilderness;
    27. San Jacinto Wilderness;
    28. Agua Tibia Wilderness; and,
    29. Joshua Tree National Park.

    As part of its analysis, ARB apportioned the state's twenty-nine 
Class I areas into the following four sub-regions: Northern California; 
Sierra California; Coastal California; and, Southern California. Within 
each sub-region, the Class I areas are assigned to a specific 
representative IMPROVE monitor. For example, within the Northern 
California sub-region, Class I areas are assigned as follows: The 
Marble Mountain Wilderness and the Yolla-Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness 
are assigned to the Trinity IMPROVE monitor; the Lava Beds National 
Monument and South Warner Wilderness are assigned to the Lava Beds 
IMPROVE monitor; and, the Lassen Volcanic National Park, the Caribou 
wilderness, and the Thousand Lakes wilderness are assigned to the 
Lassen Volcanic IMPROVE monitor.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Table 2-1, ``IMPROVE monitors and Visibility at California 
Class I Areas'', page 2-3, CRHP provides a detailed listing of 
IMPROVE monitor assignments. Also, see Figure 2-1, CRHP, 
``California's Geographic Sub-regions'', page 2-6 for a visual 
representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's four sub-regions for analyzing regional haze represent 
groupings that consider the unique terrain, ecology, land use, and 
weather patterns around each IMPROVE monitor. ARB's detailed 
examination of the resultant ambient air monitoring data showed 
similarities within definable intra-State regions. These four sub-
regions are different from each other based on physiographic features 
and land use patterns. California has grouped its Class I Areas by 
geographic sub-region to facilitate comparison of different landscapes, 
meteorological conditions, the impacts of local and regional emissions, 
and the results of local and regional control measures.
    California identified Class I areas outside of the state that are 
affected by California's regional haze pollutants. (CRHP, Figure 8.1) 
The CRHP also examined specific visibility effects of emissions on the 
following Class I areas outside of the state: Jarbidge Wilderness Area, 
Nevada; Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area and Crater Lake National Park, 
Oregon; and, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area and Grand Canyon National 
Park, Arizona.
    To conclude, we believe that California has identified all of Class 
I areas in the state that may be affected by emissions from California. 
Also, California identified Class I areas in neighboring states that 
may be affected by emissions from California. (CRHP, Figure 8.1)

B. Visibility Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress

    ARB developed the visibility estimates in the CRHP using models and 
analytical tools provided by the WRAP. We have reviewed the models and 
analytical tools used by the WRAP and those used by ARB in developing 
the CHRP. In summary, we found that the models were used appropriately, 
consistent with EPA guidance in effect at the time of their use. The 
models used by the WRAP were state-of-the-science at the time the 
modeling was conducted and model performance was adequate for the 
purposes that they were used.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For our detailed review and discussion, please see 
``Technical Support Document for Technical Products Prepared by the 
Western Regional Air Partnership in Support of Western Regional Haze 
Plans'', Final, February 2011 (WRAP TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
    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. 
Appendix B of the CRHP provides the details of these 2000-2004 baseline 
deciview calculations for each Class I area.
    For each Class I area, ARB calculated, in deciviews, the current 
visibility conditions (worst 20 percent of days) for the 2000-2004 
baseline period (Table 1, column A) and the future natural conditions 
for 2064 (Table 1, column D), the long-term programmatic goal. ARB 
calculated the deciview value representing the best visibility days 
during 2000-2004 baseline conditions, a value that must be maintained 
in future years.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Table 8 for a complete listing of the ``best 20 percent 
of days'' and ``worst 20 percent of days'' and a comparison between 
2000-2004 and 2018 deciview values for each California Class I area.

[[Page 13951]]



                          Table 1--Visibility Calculations for California Class I Areas
                         [Grouped by related IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2018                                        Date natural
   Class I Area (NP = National        2000-04       Reasonable     2018 Uniform                      condition
Park, WA = Wilderness Area, NM =     Baseline      Progress Goal      Rate of      2064 Natural   reached at RPG
National Monument, NS = National   (worst 20% of   (RPG) (worst      Progress        condition        rate of
            Seashore)                  days)       20% of days)   estimate (URP)                    improvement
                                             (A)             (B)             (C)             (D)             (E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly             17.4            16.4            15.2             7.9            2137
 Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor)...
Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA               15.1            14.4            13.4             7.9            2148
 (LABE monitor).................
Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA,             14.2            13.3            12.6             7.3            2123
 Thousand Lakes WA (LAVO
 monitor).......................
Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA                 12.6            12.3            11.1             6.1            2307
 (BLIS monitor).................
Hoover WA (HOOV monitor)........            12.9            12.5            11.7             7.7            2186
Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE              17.6            16.7            15.3             7.6            2160
 monitor).......................
Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John             15.5            14.9            13.6             7.1            2200
 Muir WA (KAIS monitor).........
Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP                 25.4            22.7            21.2             7.7            2096
 (SEQU monitor).................
Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor)....            19.4            18.1            16.6             7.5            2132
Redwood NP (REDW monitor).......            18.5            17.8            17.4            13.9            2096
Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor)...            22.8            21.3            21.2            15.8            2069
Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN              18.5            16.7            16.0             8.0            2086
 monitor).......................
San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor)....            18.8            17.3            16.2             7.6            2109
San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA                19.9            17.4            16.9             7.0            2076
 (SAGA monitor).................
San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA             22.2            19.9            18.7             7.3            2095
 (SAGO monitor).................
Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor)....            23.5            21.6            19.8             7.6            2121
Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor)...            19.6            17.9            16.7             7.2            2106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 7-2, page 7-10, CRHP.

2. Uniform Rate of Progress Estimate
    ARB calculated the uniform rate of progress (URP) estimate for each 
Class I area using the 2000-2004 baseline deciview and 2064 
programmatic goal deciview values. Essentially, the URP is represented 
as the line drawn between a given Class I area's 2004 baseline value 
and 2064 natural condition or programmatic goal value. This line is 
linear and assumes the same increment of progress every year for 60 
years. Figure 7-1 of the CRHP provides an illustration of the uniform 
rate of progress calculation and its graphic representation. ARB then 
calculated each Class I area's URP estimate for 2018.\16\ The URPs for 
each Class I area are listed in Table 1, column C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Table 7-2, ``Summary of Reasonable Progress Goal and 
Uniform Rate of Progress to Future Natural Conditions, 2018 Worst 
Days URP,'' page 7-10, CRHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has determined that California has produced the following 
visibility estimates in deciviews for each Class I area: Baseline 
visibility conditions; a ten-year reasonable progress estimate for 
2018; a 2018 uniform rate of progress estimate for comparison purposes; 
and a 2064 natural condition estimate. We propose to find that these 
estimates are consistent with the requirements of the RHR, particularly 
those requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) and (iii). Also, we 
propose to find that California has produced URP estimates consistent 
with the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).

C. California Emissions Inventories

    The RHR requires a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that 
are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in any mandatory Class I area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). In 
establishing baseline visibility conditions in each Class I area, the 
CRHP provides an emissions inventory for 2002, representing the mid-
point of the 2000-2004 baseline timeframe. Also, to chart progress in 
each Class I area, the CRHP estimated emissions for 2018, the first 
ten-year programmatic milestone. The emissions inventories estimate 
annual emissions for the following haze producing pollutants: Oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile 
organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter 
smaller than 10 microns but larger than 2.5 microns (PM coarse), fine 
particulate matter from organic carbon (OC Fine PM), fine particulate 
matter from elemental carbon (EC Fine PM), and fine particulate matter 
from other sources (Other Fine PM). The emissions inventories are 
divided into four source categories: Stationary sources, area sources, 
mobile sources, and natural sources. See Table 2. This information was 
also analyzed to compare anthropogenic versus natural sources of 
emissions. See Table 3.

                        Table 2--Emissions Inventory for California Regional Haze Pollutants by Source Category for 2002 and 2018
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Stationary (tpy)           Area (tpy)             Mobile (tpy)              Natural (tpy)
                      Pollutant                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2002        2018        2002        2018        2002        2018         2002          2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.................................................     104,991     109,514     112,988     112,789     909,380     370,385        93,043        93,043

[[Page 13952]]


SO2.................................................      42,227      49,632       9,139      10,134      11,588       3,800         9,840         9,840
VOC.................................................      54,632      54,631     335,114     594,843     518,405     232,839     2,890,198     2,890,198
NH3.................................................         433           0     202,045     193,486      22,679      30,430         7,595         7,595
PM Coarse...........................................      10,172      13,700     263,902     291,429       5,075       6,389        23,124        23,124
Fine PM OC..........................................       5,515       3,696      44,986      36,777      13,991      15,834        92,097        92,097
Fine PM EC..........................................         933         835       5,887       5,503      21,577      12,589        19,078        19,078
Other PM Fine.......................................      10,537      12,317      55,005      54,016       2,125       2,929         5,880         5,880
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 3-2, ``Individual Pollutants and Source Categories,'' page 3-4 CRHP.


                     Table 3--2002 Emissions Inventory for Anthropogenic and Natural Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Source (tons/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Anthropogenic
                          Pollutant                             Anthropogenic       Natural      share (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..........................................................        1,127,359           93,043               92
SO2..........................................................           62,954            9,840               86
VOC..........................................................          908,151        2,890,198               24
NH3..........................................................          225,157            7,595               97
PM Coarse....................................................          279,148           23,124               92
OC Fine PM...................................................           64,491           92,097               41
EC Fine PM...................................................           28,397           19,078               60
Other PM Fine................................................           67,667            5,880               92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Based on Table 3-1, ``Overall Emission Source Inventory,'' page 3-3 CRHP.

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment

    Within Appendix B of the CRHP, ARB analyzed the contribution of 
various pollutants to light extinction (i.e., visibility impairment) 
for each Class I area in the state. EPA compiled California's data for 
each of the Class I areas into a single table. Table 4 shows how much 
each pollutant contributed to light extinction at each of California's 
Class I areas during the period from 2000 to 2004.

 Table 4--Percentage of Light Extinction Contributed by Each Pollutant in California Class I Areas on Worst 20%
                                               of Days, 2000-2004
                                             [Averaged observations]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  NO3 and/ SO4 and/
                  Class I area                       or       or      OMC       EC       CM      Soil      Sea
                                                   AmNO3    AmSO4                                          salt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel WA        12.7     17.1     54.5      8.6      4.8      1.8       0.6
 (TRIN monitor).................................
Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA (LABE monitor)....      8.9     17.3     55.9      8.4      6.6      2.5       0.3
Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA, Thousand Lakes       10.9     20.1     50.8      9.1      5.9      3.0      0.09
 WA (LAVO monitor)..............................
Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA (BLIS monitor)......      8.7     18.4     50.9     10.8      7.6      3.6      0.07
Hoover WA (HOOV monitor)........................      5.2     16.2     50.0      7.8     15.3      5.2      0.32
Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE monitor).........     14.8     14.4     52.9      8.8      7.3      1.6      0.18
Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John Muir WA (KAIS        18.1     21.9     38.3      7.2     11.1      2.3      0.56
 monitor).......................................
Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP (SEQU monitor)......     54.6     14.9     18.8      5.2      5.6      0.76     0.25
Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor)....................     25.8     19.5     27.8      6.3     17.9      2.4      0.32
Redwood NP (REDW monitor).......................     13.1     27.9     15.0      2.8      7.7      0.56     33.0
Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor)...................     39.6     14.5     12.5      3.4      7.7      0.41     21.9
Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN monitor).........     31.6     25.7     24.4      8.5      7.0      1.1       1.7
San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor)....................     20.2     36.0     22.8      4.9     12.6      1.8       1.8
San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA (SAGA monitor).....     40.0     17.8     22.1      6.2     12.0      1.3      0.58
San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA (SAGO monitor)..     53.0     15.6     16.5      6.1      7.2      1.3      0.24
Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor)....................     31.1       33     18.2      6.7      8.9      1.4      0.83
Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor)...................     42.9     19.3     16.2      6.5     12.3      2.5      0.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Abbreviations: NP = National Park, WA = Wilderness Area, NM = National Monument, NS = National Seashore.
Pollutant Abbreviations: NO3 = Nitrate; AmNO3 = Ammonium Nitrate; SO4 = Sulfate; AmSO4 = Ammonium Sulfate; OMC =
  Organic Matter Carbon; EC = Elemental Carbon; Soil = PM Soil; CM = Coarse Matter.
Source: Appendix B, CA RHP. See each monitor analysis chapter.

    As the data in Table 4 show, the three primary contributors or 
drivers of haze in California are: Nitrates, organic carbon, and 
sulfates. Conversely, the monitoring data also show that coarse mass 
particulate matter, elemental

[[Page 13953]]

carbon, and fine soils do not drive visibility impairment on worst case 
days.
1. Sources of Visibility Impairment in California Class I Areas
    According to Appendix B of the CRHP, light extinction from nitrate 
is a key driver of haze at many California Class I sites, especially in 
Southern California and other sites located near major urban areas and 
transportation corridors. (CRHP, Section 4.7.3) This finding is 
consistent with the WRAP's Particulate Source Apportionment Technology 
(PSAT) showing that NOX from mobile sources was the most 
significant precursor of nitrate pollution at these Class I areas. The 
CRHP states, ``The gradient of least to most influence in light 
extinction corresponds directly to the amount of mobile source 
NOX emissions nearby.'' (CRHP, page 7-3, see also sub-
regional discussions in CRHP, Section 4.7)
    Appendix B of the CRHP also shows that organic carbon is the 
significant cause of worst day haze, in all of the state but Southern 
California. The WRAP source apportionment analysis, which formed the 
basis for the analysis in the CRHP, suggests that wildfires, biogenics 
(natural plant, animal, and soil organism emissions), and area sources 
are the primary contributors to organic carbon constituting from 25 
percent to 90 percent on worst visibility days. Biogenic emissions peak 
during the dry wildfire season, and contribute the most natural organic 
carbon, annually. Much of the directly emitted organic carbon in 
California comes from wildfires. Also, source apportionment modeling 
found that the majority of secondary organic carbon is derived from 
biogenic emission sources. A review of the PSAT analysis indicates that 
pollution from wildfires dominates in Class I areas with more than 50 
percent light extinction from organic carbon.
    Using PSAT modeling again, ARB found sulfates also drive haze at 
some Class I areas on some worst days, with the influence most 
perceptible along the coast. PSAT results indicate that Offshore and 
non-WRAP region sources are the largest contributors, accounting for 
approximately 50 to 75 percent of the measured sulfate levels. In-state 
anthropogenic sulfate emissions are estimated to account for 1 percent 
to 35 percent. (CRHP, Section 6.2.3). There are very few large 
SOX sources in California and low sulfur fuel is already 
required for both mobile and stationary sources. Offshore emissions 
appear to contribute both natural marine sulfates and SOX 
from marine commercial shipping activities. The Coastal sub-region and 
Southern California experience larger impacts from offshore shipping. 
Class I Areas in Southern California show slightly higher contributions 
from California anthropogenic sulfate (22 percent to 35 percent) than 
other Class I Areas, reflecting the proximity to point sources such as 
refineries and port-related activities.
    Coarse mass particulates do not drive haze on worst days in 
California. Occasionally, coarse mass particulates may contribute to a 
single worst day at some of the drier Class I areas in the Mojave 
Desert and on the lee side of the Sierra Nevada. The days with slightly 
elevated coarse mass particulates are almost always associated with 
windblown dust events. These wind-driven events also cause very slight 
elevations in fine soil (PM2.5 fraction of dust), but this 
species never drives worst days.
    Elemental carbon is not a driver of haze on worst days in 
California. Despite its strong capability to extinguish light, 
emissions are very low and are not expected to increase through 2018.
    Fine soil contributes least to haze statewide and is not a driver 
of haze on worst days. Fine soil is less than 1 percent of the annual 
contribution to light extinction at many IMPROVE monitors on best and 
worst days, with the highest annual average worst day contribution 
being just over 5 percent at one isolated IMPROVE monitor (HOOV) in the 
rain shadow (drier lee side) of the Sierra Nevada. On a day-to-day 
basis, fluctuations in concentration at the IMPROVE monitors are 
associated with high wind events.
    To summarize, ARB found the three primary drivers of haze in 
California to come from the following source categories: Mobile sources 
for nitrate, natural sources for organic carbon, and off-shore and non-
WRAP region sources for sulfate. These three sources are likely to 
retain a large influence on visibility conditions in the future as 
well. Studies show coarse mass particulate matter, elemental carbon, 
and fine soils do not drive visibility impairment on worst-case days.
    Regarding emissions from other western states and their visibility 
effects, given mountains in the east and north, the Pacific Ocean to 
the west, and prevailing weather patterns that move from west to east, 
emissions from neighboring states are not expected to significantly 
affect visibility in California's Class I areas. Smoke, however, from 
large wildfires in neighboring states, is an exception as it would be 
expected to impair visibility.
    To conclude, California's largest source of controllable visibility 
impairing emissions is NOX from mobile sources (see the 2002 
emissions inventory estimate in Table 2). Results from California's 
source apportionment analysis show that other anthropogenic emissions 
contributing to haze come from sources that are not within California's 
control. For example, organic carbon emissions from natural sources 
such as wildfires and biogenics, whether from in-state or out-of-state, 
contribute significantly to impaired visibility at all Class I areas in 
California. Also, visibility impairment from sulfates is caused by 
international sources outside the WRAP states, such as shipping. While 
California has programs to reduce in-state organic carbon and 
SO2 emissions, the CRHP indicates that reductions in 
anthropogenic sources of NOX, especially NOX from 
mobile sources, will lead to significant visibility improvements in 
California Class I areas.
2. California Contributions to Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas 
Outside of the State
    Within the baseline years, California is estimated to have a very 
small impact on visibility impairment in the following Class I areas in 
nearby states: Jarbidge Wilderness Area, Nevada; Kalmiopsis Wilderness 
Area and Crater Lake National Park, Oregon; and, Sycamore Canyon 
Wilderness Area and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The CRHP shows 
the NOX and SOX contributions to haze during the 
baseline years in these neighboring out-of-state Class I areas.\17\ The 
measured contribution of NOX and SOX emissions to 
particle light extinction is relatively small in these Class I areas, 
as is the estimated contribution of California NOX and 
SOX sources within these measurements. When combined, these 
2002 estimates of California's contribution to visibility impairment in 
out-of-state Class I areas suggest that California emissions are 
responsible for only a very small part of existing visibility 
impairment at out-of-state Class I areas. These base year estimates, 
however, do not reflect future reductions in California's emissions 
inventory through 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Table 8.1 Nitrate Contribution to Haze in Baseline 
Years, page 8-3 and Table 8.2, Sulfate Contribution to Haze In 
Baseline Years, page 8-4, CRHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To conclude, the state has provided an emissions inventory of 
natural and

[[Page 13954]]

anthropogenic sources that contribute to visibility impairment in Class 
I areas. California estimated stationary, area, and mobile sources 
emissions for the required base year, 2002, and for 2018. Also, with 
the WRAP, the state did source apportionment analyses of visibility 
impairment to determine the relative contributions of haze causing 
pollutants in Class I areas, both inside and outside of California. We 
found these analyses to be valid and technically correct. (See WRAP 
TSD.) Consequently, we propose to find that the state has met the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) and (d)(4)(v).

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology Evaluation

    California is required to evaluate the use of best available 
retrofit technology (BART) controls at 26 types of major stationary 
sources \18\ built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to 
emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant and may reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in 
any Class I area. CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.308(e). The 
state must submit a list of all BART-eligible sources within the state, 
and a determination of BART controls, including emission limitations 
and schedules for compliance, for those sources subject to BART. Each 
source subject to BART is required to install and operate BART, as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after EPA 
approval of the statewide regional haze SIP revision. CAA Section 
169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Sources Potentially Subject to BART
    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within a state's boundaries. BART eligible sources are 
those sources which have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or 
more of a visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place between 
August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977 and whose operations fall within one 
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 
California assumed that any source meeting the emission criteria which 
fell into the 26 listed source categories was BART-eligible unless 
there was adequate documentation to verify that the source was not put 
into place during the time period defined in the RHR. This analysis 
yielded a list of 28 sources, found in Table 5-2 of the plan.\19\ Three 
of the sources identified in this table were determined to have shut 
down: The BART-eligible units at the TXI Cement plant in Oro Grande; 
\20\ the Spreckels Sugar plant in Mendota; \21\ and, the Mirant 
electric generating station in San Francisco.\22\ These sources have 
shutdown and/or decommissioned their BART eligible sources and so were 
eliminated from further review by ARB.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The final version of this table may be found in the 
technical supplement to the SIP submitted on June 9, 2010.
    \20\ June 2010 supplement, August 4, 2009 letter from Alan J. De 
Salvio, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District to Karen 
Magliano, California Air Resources Board with attachment.
    \21\ Ibid.
    \22\ See California Energy Commission San Francisco Electric 
Reliability Project Power Plant Licensing Case Docket Number 04-AFC-
1. (http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/sanfrancisco/index.html)
    \23\ See Revised Table 5-2 (March 2010 version) in attachments 
to June 2010 supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Sources Not Contributing to Visibility Impairment
    The second phase of the BART determination process is to identify 
those BART-eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause 
or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area and are, 
therefore, subject to BART. As explained above, EPA has issued 
guidelines that provide states with guidance for addressing the BART 
requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y; see also, 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005). The BART Guidelines describe how states may consider exempting 
some BART-eligible sources from further BART review based on dispersion 
modeling showing that the sources contribute below a certain threshold 
amount. Generally, states may not establish a contribution threshold 
that exceeds 0.5 deciview impact. 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005).
    California established a threshold of 0.5 deciview. With this 
threshold, any source with an impact of greater than 0.5 deciview in 
any Class I area would be subject to a BART analysis and, if 
appropriate, BART emissions limitations.
    California did not provide an explanation for selecting the 0.5 
deciview threshold for determining whether a BART source may be 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility 
impairment in a Class I area. Based on EPA's review of the BART-
eligible sources in California, however, EPA is proposing to find that 
a 0.5 dv threshold is appropriate, given the specific facts in 
California.
    EPA's BART Guidelines recommend that states ``consider the number 
of BART sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude 
of the individual sources' impacts.'' 70 FR 39104, 39161. The BART 
Guidelines also state, ``In general, a larger number of BART sources 
causing impacts in a Class I area may warrant a lower contribution 
threshold.'' Id. An email from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California 
Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011 
(Suarez-Murias email) included an attachment with details about the 
Class I areas nearest to BART sources for those BART sources that 
either showed an impact less than 0.5 deciview, or were consistent with 
EPA's model plant analysis. Modeling for the sources in the Regional 
Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program in the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) showed that their collective 
impact would be well below the 0.5 deciview threshold, therefore 
further documentation regarding the Class I areas is not necessary. 
Table 5 shows these details from the Suarez-Murias e-mail.

         Table 5--Class I Areas Impacted by BART-Eligible Sources Below the 0.5 deciview (dv) Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Emission    Distance
              Source                    Model result       rate [tpy]     [km]          Nearest class I area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Searles Industrial...............  0.208 dv..............      *~1900          70  Dome Lands WA.
Big West Refineries..............  Model plant...........         313          80  Dome Lands WA.
Chevron Richmond Refinery........  0.393 dv..............      *~1900          30  Pt. Reyes NS.
Conoco Phillips Refinery Rodeo...  0.366 dv..............      *~2200          40  Pt. Reyes NS.
Tesoro Refinery Martinez.........  0.069 dv..............       *~500          50  Pt. Reyes NS.
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant         0.092 dv..............        ~700          50  Pt. Reyes NS.
 (Martinez).
Shell Refinery Martinez..........  0.169 dv..............      *~1100          50  Pt. Reyes NS.
Valero Refinery Benicia..........  0.291 dv..............      *~7700          50  Pt. Reyes NS.

[[Page 13955]]


Mirant Pittsburg.................  Model plant...........         559          74  Pt. Reyes NS.
Mirant Antioch...................  Model plant...........         277          79  Pt. Reyes NS.
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant         Model plant...........         314          48  San Gabriel WA.
 Ventura.
So Cal Gas.......................  Model plant...........         212          52  San Gabriel WA.
Coolwater Reliant Dagget.........  0.489 dv..............      *~3100          70  San Gorgonio WA.
Reliant..........................  Model plant...........         659          70  San Rafael WA.
JR Simplot Lathrop...............  Model plant...........         600         101  Yosemite NP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual emissions of NOX and SO2 estimated by rounding up from 24-hr max emissions used in modeling, multiplied
  by 365 days.

    Table 5 shows that there are three Class I areas affected by 
multiple BART-eligible sources that California has determined are not 
subject to BART: Dome Lands WA, San Gabriel WA, and Point Reyes NS. The 
Dome Lands WA is impacted by two BART-eligible sources. The Searles 
Industrial source was modeled to have a 0.208 deciview effect, which is 
well below the 0.5 deciview threshold. The Big West Refineries plant is 
well within the parameters of the EPA model plant. Furthermore, since 
it has a lower emission rate than Searles Industrial and is further 
from the Dome Lands Class I area, it is reasonable to assume that Big 
West Refineries maximum contribution to visibility impairment is also 
well below the 0.5 deciview threshold. The San Gabriel WA is also 
affected by two BART-eligible sources. Each source is well below the 
EPA model plant parameters and both are unlikely to have a significant 
effect on visibility at that Class I area.
    The Point Reyes NS is affected by several BART-eligible sources 
that California has determined are not subject to BART. California's 
analysis, however, supports its claim that these sources are not 
causing visibility impairment at Point Reyes NS. Appendix B to the CRHP 
shows that visibility impairment on the worst 20 percent of days at 
Point Reyes NS is caused primarily by nitrate (39.59%), sea salt 
(21.86%) and sulfate (14.54%). (CRHP, page B-105) Sea salt is clearly 
non-anthropogenic. According to the WRAP source apportionment study 
relied upon for the CRHP, nitrate extinction on the worst 20 percent of 
days is overwhelmingly from mobile sources of NOX, not 
stationary sources. (CRHP, page B-108) The sulfate on the worst 20 
percent of days at Point Reyes NS is primarily from SO2 
emitted from offshore sources and wildfires in Oregon during the 2000-
2004 base year period, and the base year period contribution from 
California stationary sources is relatively small. Moreover, the 
stationary source contribution occurred during the baseline period, 
which was before the Valero Refinery in Benicia was required to achieve 
significant SO2 reductions as a result of an EPA-negotiated 
consent decree. (CRHP, Page 5-24) In conclusion, based on the factors 
discussed above, the EPA finds the 0.5 deciview threshold to be 
appropriate for California.
    The BART Guidelines allow using model plants to determine which 
BART eligible sources are not reasonably expected to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment. That is, one can evaluate the 
visibility impacts of an example facility and apply those results to 
similar facilities. Based on EPA's model plant analysis, we believe 
that a state that has established 0.5 deciview as a contribution 
threshold could reasonably exempt from the BART review process sources 
that emit less than 500 tons per year of NOX or 
SO2 (or combined NOX and SO2), as long 
as these sources are located more than 50 kilometers from any Class I 
area; and sources that emit less than 1000 tons per year of 
NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX and 
SO2) that are located more than 100 kilometers from any 
Class I area. If a state has BART eligible sources that fall within 
these parameters, then it is reasonable to assume that these sources do 
not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Class I areas; 
therefore, they are not subject to BART controls.
    California evaluated its remaining BART eligible sources and 
determined that only three sources were subject to BART. The other 
sources demonstrated that, considering their emissions and distance to 
the nearest Class I area, they were not causing or contributing to 
visibility impairment at Class I areas. The results of this analysis 
are shown in Table 6.

       Table 6--Results of Subject to BART Analysis in California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     BART eligible source            Analysis results deciview (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesoro Refinery Martinez.....  0.069 dv.
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant     0.092 dv.
 Martinez.
Shell Refinery Martinez......  0.169 dv.
Searles Industrial...........  0.208 dv.
Valero Refinery Benicia......  0.291 dv.
Conoco Phillips Refinery       0.366 dv.
 Rodeo.
Chevron Richmond Refinery....  0.393 dv.
Coolwater Reliant Dagget.....  0.489 dv.
BP Refinery (Carson).........  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.
California Portland Cement...  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.
Chevron Refinery (El Segundo)  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.
Conoco Refinery (Carson).....  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.
Conoco Refinery (Wilmington).  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.
Exxon Refinery (Torrance)....  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.
Tesoro Refinery (Wilmington).  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.
Ultramar Refinery............  SCAQMD modeling <0.244 dv.

[[Page 13956]]


Big West Refineries..........  Comparable to EPA model plant.
JR Simplot Lathrop...........  Comparable to EPA model plant.
Mirant Power Plant (Antioch).  Comparable to EPA model plant.
Mirant Power Plant             Comparable to EPA model plant.
 (Pittsburg).
Reliant Ventura County.......  Comparable to EPA model plant.
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant     Comparable to EPA model plant.
 (South Coast).
So Cal Gas...................  Comparable to EPA model plant.
Cabrillo Encina Plant........  Subject to BART.
Duke Energy South Bay........  Subject to BART.
Dynegy Moss Landing..........  Subject to BART.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources
  Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated February 11, 2011.

    The air control districts with authority over these sources modeled 
the visibility impacts of the first eight sources on Table 5 using 
CalPUFF (Tesoro Refinery Martinez through Coolwater Reliant Dagget). 
These sources were modeled individually and the results indicated that 
they do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Class I 
areas. The next nine sources were modeled collectively by the SCAQMD. 
All of these sources are part of the RECLAIM emissions cap and trade 
system in the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD modeled all of the sources in RECLAIM 
(including these nine sources) and demonstrated that the entire 
universe of sources in RECLAIM has an aggregate impact of less than a 
0.244 deciview on Class I areas. Therefore, each individual source must 
have a less than 0.244 deciview impact on visibility at Class I areas, 
meaning none of them cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
these protected areas. The EPA evaluated the modeling analyses 
conducted by all the districts and found them to be valid and 
technically correct.\24\ (See BART TSD.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For our detailed review and discussion, please see 
``Technical Support Document for USEPA's Review of the California 
Regional Haze Plan's Modeling for the Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) Evaluation'', Prepared by USEPA Region 9, March 4, 
2011 (BART TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next seven sources used the EPA model plant analysis described 
previously in this section. The details on these sources are shown in 
Table 7.

                    Table 7--California BART Sources Meeting the EPA Model Plant Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Emissions
                    Source                       (tons per     Distance            Class I area affected
                                                   year)     (kilometers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big West Refineries...........................          313            80  Domelands WA.
JR Simplot Lathrop............................          600           101  Yosemite NP.
Mirant Power Plant Antioch....................          277            79  Pt. Reyes NS.
Mirant Power Plant Pittsburg..................          559            74  Pt. Reyes NS.
Reliant Ventura County........................          659            70  San Rafael WA.
Rhodia Sulfuric Acid Plant (South Coast)......          314            48  San Gabriel WA.
So Cal Gas....................................          212            52  San Gabriel WA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: e-mail from Christine M. Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board to Greg Nudd, USEPA, dated
  February 11, 2011.

    EPA's model plant analysis indicated that a source emitting less 
than 500 tons per year (tpy) of combined NOX and 
SOX would not contribute to visibility impairment if it were 
located more than 50 kilometers from the nearest Class I area. Four of 
the sources in Table 6 emit less than 500 tpy and three of them are 
more than 50 kilometers away from the nearest Class I area. The Rhodia 
Sulfuric Acid Plant is 48 kilometers from the San Gabriel Wilderness 
Area. However, since its emission rate is well below 500 tons per year, 
this source is also consistent with the model plant analysis. The EPA 
model plant analysis also indicated that sources that emit less than 
1000 tons per year do not contribute to visibility impairment if they 
are located more than 100 kilometers away from the nearest Class I 
area. Three of the sources in Table 6 exceed 500 tpy but emit less than 
1000 tpy. The JR Simplot Lathrop source is over 100 kilometers from the 
nearest Class I area and so is consistent with the model plant. The 
Mirant Power Plant in Pittsburg and the Reliant Plant in Ventura County 
are somewhat less than 100 kilometers from their respective Class I 
areas; however, their emissions are significantly less than 1000 tpy. 
For these reasons, we propose to find that these are also consistent 
with the EPA model plant analysis.
3. Sources Already Controlled to BART
    The remaining BART eligible sources, Cabrillo Encina Plant, Duke 
Energy (South Bay), and Dynegy Moss Landing are subject to BART. These 
plants are all natural gas burning electric generating units. Since 
these sources burn natural gas, their SOX emissions are not 
significant with respect to visibility. NOX emissions are 
the primary concern, considering visibility impairment. Each of these 
sources already control NOX emissions with selective 
catalytic reduction (SCR) technology. This technology is recognized as 
the Best Available Control Technology for natural gas burning electric 
generating units and is required on most new sources of this type. As 
such, SCR represents BART for these sources.
    To conclude, California evaluated the required universe of sources 
for applicability of BART controls using the criteria in the RHR and 
the BART Guidance. The state found that three sources were eligible for 
the application of BART controls: Cabrillo Encina Plant, Duke Energy 
(South Bay), and Dynegy Moss Landing. After a review of the control 
technologies in use at these BART eligible plants, California found 
that BART level controls were already

[[Page 13957]]

in place at the sources with a potential to impair visibility at Class 
I areas. We propose to find that California has conducted a BART 
evaluation consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e).

F. Visibility Projections for 2018 and the Reasonable Progress Goals

    The RHR requires states to establish a goal, expressed in 
deciviews, for each Class I area within the state that provides for 
reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions by 
2064. The RPG must improve visibility for the most impaired days, and 
ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over 
the period of the SIP.
    The RPGs for the CRHP show visibility improvement by 2018 for both 
``worst 20 percent of days'' and ``best 20 percent of days'' in all 
Class I areas when compared to the baseline ``worst'' and ``best'' 
days. See Table 8.

                Table 8--Baseline Versus 2018 Visibility Conditions for California Class I Areas
                        [Grouped by respective IMPROVE monitor and reported in deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Class I area (NP = National
Park, WA = Wilderness Area, NM =      2000-04     2018 Estimated     2018 URP         2000-04     2018 Estimated
National Monument, NS = National  Baseline worst    worst haze       estimate      Baseline best  best haze days
            Seashore)                haze days      days (RPG)                       haze days
                                             (A)             (B)             (C)             (D)             (E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marble Mountain WA, Yolla Bolly             17.4            16.4            15.2             3.4             3.2
 Middle Eel WA (TRIN monitor)...
Lava Beds NM, South Warner WA               15.1            14.4            13.4             3.2             3.0
 (LABE monitor).................
Lassen Volcanic NP, Caribou WA,             14.2            13.3            12.6             2.7             2.5
 Thousand Lakes WA..............
(LAVO monitor)..................
Desolation WA, Mokelumne WA                 12.6            12.3            11.1             2.5             2.5
 (BLIS monitor).................
Hoover WA (HOOV monitor)........            12.9            12.5            11.7             1.4             1.3
Yosemite NP, Emigrant WA (YOSE              17.6            16.7            15.3             3.4             3.2
 monitor).......................
Ansel Adams WA, Kaiser WA, John             15.5            14.9            13.6             2.3             2.1
 Muir WA (KAIS monitor).........
Sequoia NP, Kings Canyon NP                 25.4            22.7            21.2             8.8             8.1
 (SEQU monitor).................
Dome Lands WA (DOME monitor)....            19.4            18.1            16.6             5.1             4.7
Redwood NP (REDW monitor).......            18.5            17.8            17.4             6.1             5.8
Point Reyes NS (PORE monitor)...            22.8            21.3            21.2            10.5            10.1
Pinnacles NM, Ventana WA (PINN              18.5            16.7            16.0             8.9             8.1
 monitor).......................
San Rafael WA (RAFA monitor)....            18.8            17.3            16.2             6.4             5.8
San Gabriel WA, Cucamonga WA                19.9            17.4            16.9             4.1             4.8
 (SAGA monitor).................
San Gorgonio WA, San Jacinto WA             22.2            19.9            18.7             5.4             5.0
 (SAGO monitor).................
Agua Tibia WA (AGTI monitor)....            23.5            21.6            19.8             9.6             8.9
Joshua Tree NP (JOSH monitor)...            19.6            17.9            16.7             6.1             5.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Table 6-1, page 6-10; and Table 7-2, page 7-10, CRHP.

    Also, as required by the RHR, California estimated the time each 
Class I area would take to reach natural conditions under the RPG rate 
of visibility improvement (see Table 1, column E). While some of the 
time estimates are close to the 2064 natural conditions goal, none of 
the estimates show that natural conditions will be achieved by 2064 in 
California's Class I areas.
1. Establishing the Reasonable Progress Goals
    Because California's RPG estimates provide for a rate of 
improvement in visibility slower than the rate needed to show 
attainment of natural conditions by 2064, the RHR requires the state to 
demonstrate why its RPGs are reasonable and why a rate of progress 
leading to attainment by 2064 is not reasonable.\25\ 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(ii). The RHR specifies that RPGs, as well as the 
demonstration of the reasonableness of attainment beyond 2064, are to 
be evaluated through the use of four factors: Costs of compliance; time 
necessary for compliance; energy and, non-air quality environmental 
impacts of compliance; and remaining useful life of any potentially 
affected sources. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A); 51.308(d)(1)(ii). As 
explained below, we believe the CRHP demonstrates these four factors 
and that the RPGs in the plan are reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The RHR also requires that the state provide to the public 
an assessment of the number of years it will take to reach natural 
visibility conditions. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii). California's 
estimates were noticed to the public during the public review and 
comment process prior to ARB's adoption of the CRHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's RPGs are projected visibility levels based on 
atmospheric modeling performed by the WRAP. The WRAP modeling was 
based, in part, on California's 2018 emissions projections derived from 
the emissions reductions described in California's 2018 Progress 
Strategy. California's 2018 Progress Strategy is based on the 
identification of the major drivers of haze on worst days, as well as 
the sources of these pollutants and their precursors. In particular, 
the 2018 Progress Strategy predicts significant reductions in the 
nitrate component of haze from NOX emission reductions 
achieved by California's mobile source control programs. Weighted 
emissions, or back trajectory analyses, along with predictive modeling 
show that substantial reductions in nitrate, roughly 50 percent at 
every Class I area, can be achieved through mobile source 
NOX emission reductions in the 2018 Progress Strategy. 
(CRHP, page 7-3)
    The analysis of the sources of haze from section 4.7 of CRHP shows 
that the primary anthropogenic source of haze within California is 
NOX emissions. Therefore, the largest impact California can 
make to improve visibility is by reducing anthropogenic sources of the 
NOX emissions that lead to the formation of nitrates, 
especially, NOX from mobile sources. According to ARB's 2018 
emissions inventory, California will have reduced NOX 
emissions by 47 percent compared to 2002, with the majority of those

[[Page 13958]]

emission reductions coming from mobile sources. The 2018 emissions 
inventory also shows that reductions in mobile source SOX 
emissions will offset increases in other source categories. (See Table 
2) In addition, the 2018 emissions inventory predicts reductions in 
organic carbon PM and mobile source elemental carbon PM emissions.

                Table 9--Percentage Change in Anthropogenic Emissions Inventory From 2002 to 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2002               2018
                                                           Anthropogenic      Anthropogenic
                       Pollutant                             emissions          emissions      Percentage change
                                                          inventory  (tpy)   inventory  (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX....................................................          1,127,359            592,688                -47
SO2....................................................             62,954             63,566                  1
VOC....................................................            908,151            882,313                 -3
NH3....................................................            225,157            223,916                 -1
PM Coarse..............................................            279,149            311,518                 12
Fine PM OC.............................................             64,492             56,307                -13
Fine PM EC.............................................             28,397             18,927                -33
Other PM Fine..........................................             67,667             69,262                  2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California also evaluated all source categories that could 
reasonably be expected to contribute to visibility impairment at Class 
I areas.\26\ This analysis considered, for each sub-region, the species 
contributing to haze and the source categories responsible for 
anthropogenic emissions of precursors to those species. For example, in 
the Sierra Nevada mountain range, nitrate pollution accounts for 17 
percent of light extinction on the most impaired days of the baseline 
period. Because nitrate is the predominant anthropogenic pollutant in 
this area and most of the emissions are from within the state, 
California examined the anthropogenic sources of NOX in that 
area. A PSAT analysis indicated that 76 percent of those emissions were 
from mobile sources. California also considered SO2 
emissions, which comprise 14 percent of light extinction on the most 
impaired days; 45 percent of these emissions were shown by PSAT to be 
from outside the modeling domain while 22 percent were from within 
California. California examined these sources and demonstrated that 
they were already reasonably controlled. (CRHP, Chapter 4, Section 4.7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Please see CRHP Chapter 4, Section 4.7, Regional Analysis 
of Source Categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, through the state's efforts to attain and maintain the 
Federal and State health-based air quality standards, the state asserts 
that every reasonable measure is included in the state's 2018 Progress 
Strategy underlying the RPGs for Class I areas.
    EPA also notes that there is a degree of uncertainty, due to 
wildfires and biogenic emissions, in the values representing baseline 
and natural conditions.
    Furthermore, as explained in the EPA's RPG Guidance, the 2018 URP 
estimate is not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, 
or equivalent to the glide path. The glide path to 2064 represents a 
rate of progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to 
the amount of progress they expect to achieve. Given the strenuous 
efforts needed in California to achieve the emission reductions 
described in Tables 2 and 9, the resulting 2018 RPGs, and the 
constraints and uncertainties described above, we believe it would be 
unreasonable to require the CRHP to meet the 2018 URP estimates.
    Consequently, we propose to find that the state has demonstrated 
that its 2018 RPGs are reasonable and consistent with the requirements 
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
2. Interstate Consultation
    The CRHP, along with its RPGs, is the result of California's 
continuous consultation with thirteen other western states through 
regular meetings of the WRAP Working Groups and Forums, via conference 
calls, face-to-face meetings, and workshops over the timeframe of 
several years. Through the WRAP consultative process, California 
resolved technical tasks and policy decisions related to monitoring, 
emissions, fire tracking, application of BART, source attribution, 
modeling, and control measure issues. Emissions from other western US 
states are not expected to affect California significantly, except for 
smoke from large wildfires. Furthermore, there were no comments on the 
CRHP from neighboring states regarding the plan's baseline visibility 
estimates, 2018 visibility projections, RPGs, or 2018 Progress 
Strategy.

G. Long-Term Strategy

    The RHR requires California to submit a long-term strategy 
addressing regional haze visibility impairment for the Class I areas 
affected by the emissions from the state. California's 2018 Progress 
Strategy reflects the measures that were included in the 2002 and 2018 
emission inventories and WRAP analyses that produced California's 
reasonable progress goals. The RHR requires that a state's strategy 
consider emission reductions from on-going control programs, 
construction activity mitigation, source retirement and replacement, 
and smoke management techniques. Due to California's severe air quality 
problems, the state has emissions control programs that address these 
RHR considerations.
    California's 2018 Progress Strategy (Chapter 4 of the CRHP) 
includes Federal, State and local control measures. As reflected in the 
2018 emissions inventory, these control measures address the main 
anthropogenic constituents of California's visibility problem: 
NOX, SOX, and directly emitted particulate matter 
emissions. As the RPGs in Table 8 suggest, the measures in the 2018 
Progress Strategy will improve visibility in all California Class I 
areas. Also, implementation of the 2018 Progress Strategy is expected 
to minimize California's existing very small contribution to visibility 
impairment in downwind states. The CRHP describes ongoing state and 
local emission control measures, as summarized below.
1. Ongoing Air Pollution Control Programs
    Air pollution control programs in California are divided among the 
state, multi-county air districts, and county level air quality control 
agencies. Among state agencies, ARB is responsible for regulating 
mobile sources emissions (except where preempted by Federal law) and 
consumer products, developing fuel specifications, establishing 
gasoline vapor recovery standards and certifying

[[Page 13959]]

vapor recovery systems. Local air districts have primary responsibility 
for regulating stationary and area wide sources.
a. Mobile Source Programs
    California's regulation of mobile source emissions covers new 
vehicle emissions standards, low polluting fuel formulations, and off-
road sources such as lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles 
and boats, and construction equipment. With the implementation of the 
2018 Control Strategy, the state predicts that reductions from mobile 
sources will occur as the result of several regulatory efforts.
    For example, according to the CRHP, California's 2008 low-emission 
vehicle standards and reformulated gasoline reduced VOC emissions to 
less than 50 pounds per 100,000 miles traveled, and predicted 
reductions for the 2010 model year to be approximately 10 pounds per 
100,000 miles. California also points out that mobile source organic 
carbon emissions are reduced beyond what is required under national 
regulations. (CRHP, page 4-2 to 4-3)
    ARB's efforts with EPA to regulate large diesel, gasoline and 
liquid petroleum gas equipment will result in new large off-road 
equipment that will be 98 percent cleaner. These regulations will 
reduce both NOX and elemental carbon emissions. (CRHP, page 
4-4)
    In addition, ARB has worked with EPA to reduce emissions from goods 
movement sources. For example, the CRHP estimates that low-sulfur fuel 
requirements will reduce SOX emissions from ship auxiliary 
engines by 96 percent and new locomotive engines by 50-60 percent. 
(CRHP, Table 4-1 and discussion, page 4-4)
    ARB plans to reduce emissions from smaller engines, such as lawn 
and garden equipment, recreational vehicles, and boats, achieving 82-90 
percent fewer NOX emissions than uncontrolled units. (CRHP, 
Table 4-1, and discussion, page 4-4)
    The CRHP describes California's efforts to reduce diesel PM 
emissions since 2000, when California began implementing its Diesel 
Risk Reduction Plan, aimed at reducing diesel PM emissions by 85 
percent by 2020. Through engine retrofits and replacements, ARB 
predicts these control measures will reduce NOX emissions as 
well as diesel PM emissions. (CHRP, Section 4.2.3, page 4-6) The CRHP 
states that this program has already provided visibility benefits as 
shown by elemental carbon trends at IMPROVE monitors. In 2013 and 2018, 
the state predicts more visibility improvement as related rules adopted 
during the 2000-2004 baseline period continue their implementation. 
(CRHP, page 7-4)
b. Stationary and Area Source Regulations by Local Air Agencies
    California's thirty-five local air districts and air quality 
control agencies are primarily responsible for regulating emissions 
from stationary and area-wide sources through rules and permitting 
programs. For example, air district regulated sources include 
industrial sources like factories, refineries, and power plants; 
commercial sources like gas stations, dry cleaners, and paint spray 
booth operations; residential sources like fireplaces, water heaters, 
and house paints; and miscellaneous non-mobile sources like emergency 
generators. Air districts also inspect and test fuel vapor recovery 
systems to check that such systems are operating as certified.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For a complete listing of local California air district 
rules within the federally enforceable SIP, please see our online 
database at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/sips/index.html. This 
database is organized first by state and then local agency. The 
rules are listed by number, title, adoption date, and the date the 
rule was approved into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Construction Activities
    Many air districts have adopted stringent rules to control fugitive 
dust emissions from construction activities. These rules include the 
following examples: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 
(SJVAPCD) Regulation 8--Fugitive PM-10 Prohibitions, adopted in 2004 
(71 FR 8461, (February 17, 2006)); and, SCAQMD Rule 403--Fugitive Dust 
(73 FR 12639, (March 10, 2008)).
    In July 2007, ARB adopted a regulation designed to reduce diesel 
and NOX emissions from the state's estimated 180,000 off-
road vehicles used in construction, mining, airport ground support and 
other industries. These regulations were not adopted in time to be 
considered by the WRAP and the state when producing the RPGs; however, 
ARB estimates that by 2020 ``particulate matter will be reduced by 74 
percent and NOX will be reduced by 32 percent compared to 
current levels.'' (CRHP, page 4-11)
3. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
    ARB reports that older and high polluting sources produce the 
majority of mobile source emissions; as a result, California has 
directed its source retirement strategy towards mobile sources. 
California has pursued the retirement of engines using incentive 
funding programs together with in-use regulations. For example, using 
the Carl Moyer Program, the state has invested up to $170 million 
annually to clean up as many as 7,500 older, higher-emitting engines, 
thereby reducing NOX emissions by as much as 24 tons per 
day. (CRHP, pages 4-11 to 4-12)
4. Smoke Management Programs
    California's ``Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and 
Prescribed Burning (SMG)'' is the basis for the state's Smoke 
Management Program. Together, the ARB and the local air pollution 
control districts implement the SMG. ARB oversees the program and makes 
daily burn/no burn day decisions for each of the air basins in the 
state. In turn, air districts have adopted comprehensive smoke 
management programs and regulations to implement and enforce the SMG. 
These smoke management programs contain requirements for agricultural 
and prescribed burns permits; daily burn authorizations; annual 
reporting; registration and smoke management plans for prescribed 
burns.\28\ According to the CRHP, smoke management plans must 
specifically consider Class I Areas as sensitive receptors. (CRHP, 
pages 4-12 and 4-13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Examples of local air district rules implementing the SMG 
are as follows: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Pollution Control 
District Rule 501--Agricultural Burning (49 FR 47490 (December 5, 
1984)); adopted in 1992 and amended since, SJVAPCD Rule 4103--Open 
Burning (74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009)); SJVAPCD Rule 4106--
Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction (67 FR 8894 (February 27, 
2002)); and, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District 
Regulation 3--Open Burning (62 FR 48480 (September 16, 1997) and 64 
FR 45170 (August 19, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Enforceability of Measures in the Long-Term Strategy
    The RHR requires that the state's long-term strategy include 
enforceable measures necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals 
at every Class I area (inside and outside the state) affected by 
emissions from that state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). California's RPGs are 
based on the region-wide inventory developed by the WRAP states that 
included data for California sources. The emissions inventory from 
California was based on rules adopted through 2004. (CRHP, page 3-1)
    Table 2 of this notice shows changes in emissions by pollutant and 
source category between 2002 and 2018. The pollutants of concern for 
visibility impairment are NOX, SO2, and VOC (as 
organic carbon precursor). A review of Table 2 indicates that moderate 
increases of SO2 and VOC from

[[Page 13960]]

stationary and area sources are offset by significant reductions in 
emissions from mobile sources. Table 2 also shows that the reductions 
in NOX statewide are attributable to a decrease in emissions 
from mobile sources of over 530,000 tons per year. Therefore, the 
enforceability of mobile source measures is a critical consideration 
when evaluating the measures necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals.
    California's mobile source measures fall within two categories: 
Measures for which the state has obtained or has applied to obtain a 
waiver of federal pre-emption under CAA section 209 (section 209 waiver 
measure or waiver measure) and those for which the state is not 
required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver measures).
    EPA's position on the creditability of California's mobile source 
control measures in SIP attainment demonstrations has been addressed in 
previous actions. See EPA's proposed approval and final approval of the 
SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 
10420, 10424 (March 8, 2010).
    EPA recently evaluated California mobile source measures as part of 
our November 10, 2010 proposed action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 
PM2.5 plan and the San Joaquin Valley portions of the 
revised 2007 state strategy. See, e.g., 75 FR 74517 (Nov. 10, 2010). In 
taking this action, we described how EPA had either approved 
California's mobile source rules into the SIP, or granted a waiver of 
federal pre-emption under CAA section 209.
    Based on this analysis, EPA proposes to find that the measures in 
the CRHP are sufficient to achieve the reasonable progress goals, as 
required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    To conclude, California has submitted a long-term strategy 
addressing visibility impairment due to regional haze within Class I 
areas, both inside and outside of the state. Through participation in 
the WRAP, California consulted with neighboring states and coordinated 
its 2018 Progress Strategy, as well as developed and documented the 
technical basis for the 2018 Progress Strategy. Within the 2018 
Progress Strategy, the state has considered and addressed measures to 
mitigate the impacts of construction activities, source retirement and 
replacement schedules, and smoke management for agricultural and 
forestry practices. The state has estimated the 2002 base year and 2018 
anthropogenic and natural source emissions inventory and the emission 
reductions resulting from the 2018 Progress Strategy's control 
measures. Consequently, we propose to find that California has met the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).

H. Monitoring Strategy

    According to the CRHP, California intends to rely on the IMPROVE 
monitoring program to collect and report data for reasonable progress 
tracking for all Class I Areas in the state. Because the RHR requires a 
long-term tracking program over a 60-year implementation period, the 
CRHP states that California expects the configuration of the monitors, 
sampling site locations, laboratory analysis methods and data quality 
assurance, and network operation protocols will not change; or, if they 
are changed, any future IMPROVE program will remain comparable to the 
one operating during the 2000-2004 RHR baseline period. Through 2018, 
the CRHP does not specify any additional monitors beyond the existing 
IMPROVE network. Also, California will continue to meet the requirement 
to coordinate its CRHP monitoring with its monitoring for RAVI by 
participating in the IMPROVE monitoring network. Finally, California 
plans to use data reported by the IMPROVE program as part of the 
regional technical support analysis tools found at the Visibility 
Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS), as well as other analysis 
tools and efforts sponsored by the WRAP. (CRHP, page 9-1)
    To conclude, California has submitted a monitoring strategy for 
measuring, characterizing and reporting on regional haze visibility 
impairment in the state's Class I areas. The state will depend on the 
IMPROVE monitoring program to collect and report data for tracking 
reasonable progress, as specified in the RHR for all Class I areas in 
the state. The state will use data reported by the IMPROVE program and 
the regional analysis tools found at the VIEWS. Consequently, we 
propose to find that the state has met the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(4).

I. Federal Land Manager Consultation and Coordination

    The RHR requires states to coordinate the development and 
implementation of their visibility protection programs with the Federal 
Land Managers (FLMs). In particular, states must provide FLMs an 
opportunity for consultation at least sixty days prior to holding any 
public hearing on the SIP. Consultation must include the opportunity 
for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility impairment in 
any Class I areas, and offer recommendations on the development of RPGs 
and strategies to address visibility impairment. A state must describe 
in its SIP how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs and 
include procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs on program implementation. In the future, FLMs must have the 
opportunity for consultation with the state on the development and 
review of plan revisions and five-year progress reports as well as on 
the implementation of other programs that might contribute to 
visibility impairment in Class I areas.
    The CRHP states that California has provided a list of ARB contacts 
to the FLMs, as required by the RHR. In November 2006, ARB sponsored a 
``Regional Haze Teach-In,'' with participants from several federal 
agencies (the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the 
Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 
EPA), and interested air districts. ARB staff presented and discussed 
the state's proposed 2018 Progress Strategy and RPGs. (CRHP, page 8-5) 
Subsequently, an ARB/Federal Land Managers Regional Haze Steering 
Committee (Steering Committee) was formed. The participants conducted 
monthly conferences to review progress on regional haze planning and to 
obtain input from FLMs. California's RPGs were also discussed during 
these calls. (CRHP, page 8-5)
    Prior to the January 22, 2009 ARB adoption hearing, ARB provided 
the FLMs with a draft of the CRHP and requested comment. ARB also 
provided a webcast workshop on December 15, 2008 to allow participation 
by federal land management agency field office staff in remote 
locations. (CRHP, page 8-6) Appendix F of the CRHP includes the FLMs' 
official comments, along with responses prepared by ARB.
    The CRHP states that California will continue to coordinate and 
consult with the FLMs over the course of the implementation period. 
California intends to use three existing coordination mechanisms for 
this purpose: the Interagency Air and Smoke Council, the Air and Land 
Managers Group, and the WRAP. (CRHP, page 8-7)
    To conclude, beginning in November 2006, California provided 
numerous and regular opportunities for FLM review of the CRHP as it was 
developed. Prior to ARB adoption of the CRHP on January 22, 2009, ARB 
provided a 60-day comment period for FLMs and a formal public comment 
period beginning December 5, 2008, and a video-conferencing forum to 
solicit FLM comment on the final draft CRHP. FLM comments and ARB 
responses were

[[Page 13961]]

included with the CRHP in Appendix F. In the future, the state will 
consult and coordinate regional haze activities with FLMs through three 
existing venues: The Interagency Air and Smoke Council, the Air and 
Land Managers Group, and the WRAP. Consequently, we propose to find 
that the state has met the FLM coordination and consultation 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    The CRHP states that California will perform a mid-course review in 
2013 to assess progress towards reaching the RPGs. California's mid-
course review will consider post-2004 control measures that were not 
included in the 2018 Progress Strategy. The CRHP states that the mid-
course review will also do the following: ``Update natural conditions 
to reflect new information, if available; update the RPGs with latest 
WRAP modeling, if appropriate; re-evaluate the RPGs to determine if 
they should be adjusted to better reflect achievable improvements in 
visibility, as future control measures are adopted and implemented; 
compare the actual deciview calculations against progress towards 
reaching the RPGs and the uniform rate of progress; assess the impact 
at the monitors from BART-specific and post-2004 adopted and 
implemented measures; and, evaluate the adequacy of the existing CRHP 
elements.'' (CRHP, Section 9.3, page 9-2)
    In 2018, California will revise the CRHP, following procedures for 
coordination with other western states and FLMs. California intends for 
the 2018 CRHP revision to include the following updates: ``Current 
calculation methodologies for visibility; evaluation of the 
appropriateness of natural condition levels and updates, if 
appropriate; current visibility conditions for most impaired and least 
impaired days; progress towards natural conditions; effectiveness of 
California's 2018 Progress Strategy; affirmation or revision of 
reasonable progress goals; updated emission inventories; and, re-
evaluation of the monitoring strategy.'' (CRHP, Section 9.4, pages 9-2 
to 9-3)
    To conclude, California has submitted a plan with commitments to 
provide a 2013 progress report evaluating the January 22, 2009 CRHP and 
RPGs, as well as a 2018 regional haze plan revision. Consequently, we 
propose to find that the state has met the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and (g).

V. EPA's Analysis of How California's Regional Haze Plan Meets 
Interstate Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIP revision to contain 
``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.'' EPA is proposing to find that the SIP 
submitted by California to address regional haze contains adequate 
provisions to meet the ``good neighbor'' provisions of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
    As an initial matter, EPA notes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 
does not specify explicitly how EPA should ascertain whether a state's 
SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from sources in 
that state from interfering with measures required in another state to 
protect visibility. Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its face, and EPA 
must interpret this provision.
    Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a state could meet the 
visibility prong of the transport requirements for section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submitting a regional haze SIP, due in December 
2007. EPA's reasoning 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. In 
fact, in developing their respective reasonable progress goals, WRAP 
states consulted with each other through the WRAP's work groups. As a 
result of this process, the common understanding was that each state 
would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by 
other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. 
This interpretation is consistent with the RHR requirement 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).
    As discussed above in sections IV.F and IV.G of this proposed rule, 
as a WRAP member, California developed the 2018 Progress Strategy in 
consultation with 13 other WRAP states to address regional haze 
visibility impairment in Class I areas affected by California 
emissions. California also developed a set of emissions inventories 
reflecting the state's implementation of a broad range of emission 
control measures included in the 2018 Progress Strategy. See sections 
IV.C and IV.G.5 above for a discussion of these emissions inventories 
and control measures. As part of the WRAP's regional consultative 
process, California provided the WRAP with these emissions inventories 
for the WRAP's regional 2018 future year modeling. The WRAP projected 
visibility levels for all Class I areas in California and neighboring 
states based on California's projected 2018 emissions inventories and 
the 2018 inventories supplied by other WRAP states. Each of the WRAP 
states then developed its regional haze plan using these visibility 
projections.
    As a result, California's 2018 Progress Strategy and projected 
emissions inventories, including the control measures upon which they 
rely, were accounted for in the WRAP's apportionment of emission 
reduction obligations among the member states. Each of the WRAP states 
then developed their respective reasonable progress goals based upon an 
understanding that California's implementation of the emission control 
measures included in the 2018 Progress Strategy would achieve 
California's projected 2018 emissions inventory levels. Thus, the 
following elements of the CRHP ensure that emissions from California 
will not interfere with the reasonable progress goals for neighboring 
states' Class I areas: Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 
(California 2018 Progress Strategy), and chapter 8 (Consultation). We 
propose to determine that these elements of the CRHP adequately address 
California's apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed 
upon through the WRAP consultative process and, therefore, satisfy the 
requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding measures 
required in other states to protect visibility for the 1997 8-hour 
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. EPA's Proposed Action

    Because EPA believes the California Regional Haze Plan fulfills all 
the relevant requirements of Section 169B and the Regional Haze Rule, 
we are proposing to fully approve the plan as described in section 
110(k)(3) of the Act. In sum, we are proposing to find that California 
has met the following Regional Haze Rule requirements: The state has 
established baseline visibility conditions and reasonable progress 
goals for each of its Class I areas; the state has developed a long-
term strategy with enforceable measures ensuring reasonable progress 
towards meeting the Reasonable Progress Goals for the first

[[Page 13962]]

ten-year planning period, through 2018; the state has addressed 
adequately the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology to 
specific stationary sources; the state has an adequate regional haze 
monitoring strategy; the state has provided for consultation and 
coordination with federal land managers in producing its regional haze 
plan; and, provided for the regional haze plan's future revisions.
    In addition, we are proposing to approve California's 2007 
Transport SIP and the following specific elements of the CRHP as 
satisfying the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement to prohibit 
emissions that will interfere with measures to protect visibility in 
another state for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS: Chapter 3 (Emissions Inventory), chapter 4 (California 2018 
Progress Strategy), and, chapter 8 (Consultation).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this 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 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 
compounds.

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

    Dated: March 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-6003 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

