Proposed Rule2024-29595
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Implementation Period
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 19, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the regional haze state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by California on August 9, 2022 (hereinafter the "2022 California Regional Haze Plan" or "the Plan"), under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule for the program's second implementation period. California's SIP submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to CAA sections 110 and 169A.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 103737-103761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29595]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2024-0459; FRL-12287-01-R9]
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; California; Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan for the Second Implementation Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove the regional haze state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by California on August 9,
2022 (hereinafter the ``2022 California Regional Haze Plan'' or ``the
Plan''), under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
for the program's second implementation period. California's SIP
submission addresses the requirement that states must periodically
revise their long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
towards the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any
existing, anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional
haze, in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also
addresses other applicable requirements for the second implementation
period of the regional haze program. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to CAA sections 110 and 169A.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 3, 2025.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2024-0459 at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, Planning Section (ARD-
2-1), Planning & Analysis Branch, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105, 415-972-3407, or by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#caa6abbdb8afa4a9afe4a6abbfb8ab8aafbaabe4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6cac7d1d4c3c8c5c388cac7d3d4c7e6c3d6c788c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
[[Page 103738]]
A. Regional Haze Background
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second
Implementation Period
A. Identification of Class I Areas
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan
Requirements
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of California's Regional Haze Submission
for the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on California's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
B. California's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission
C. Identification of Class I Areas
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
G. Additional Monitoring To Assess Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
I. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards
the Reasonable Progress Goals
J. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On August 9, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan to address the
requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA
sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308. For the reasons described in
this document, the EPA is proposing to approve the elements of the Plan
related to requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4)-(6), and 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)-(5). The EPA is proposing to
disapprove the elements of the Plan related to requirements contained
in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3), and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)-
(4).
II. Background and Requirements for Regional Haze Plans
A. Regional Haze Background
In the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation's mandatory Class I Federal areas,
which include certain national parks and wilderness areas.\1\ The CAA
establishes as a national goal the ``prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class
I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.''
\2\ The CAA further directs the EPA to promulgate regulations to assure
reasonable progress toward meeting this national goal.\3\ On December
2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas (hereinafter referred to
as ``Class I areas'') that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single
source or small group of sources.\4\ These regulations, codified at 40
CFR 51.300 through 51.307, represented the first phase of the EPA's
efforts to address visibility impairment. In 1990, Congress added
section 169B to the CAA to further address visibility impairment,
specifically, impairment from regional haze.\5\ The EPA promulgated the
Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified at 40 CFR 51.308,\6\ on July 1,
1999.\7\ These regional haze regulations are a central component of the
EPA's comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CAA 169A. Areas statutorily 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. CAA 162(a). There are 156 mandatory Class I areas. The list of
areas to which the requirements of the visibility protection program
apply is in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\2\ CAA 169A(a)(1).
\3\ CAA 169A(a)(4).
\4\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
\5\ CAA 169B.
\6\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, the EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are applicable only for specific jurisdictions' regional
haze plans submitted no later than December 17, 2007, and thus are
not relevant here.
\7\ 64 FR 35714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of anthropogenic sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and that emit pollutants that impair
visibility. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse
particulate matter (PM) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and, in
some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia
(NH<INF>3</INF>)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to
form fine particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>), which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the perception of clarity and color, as well as visible
distance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ There are several ways to measure the amount of visibility
impairment, i.e., haze. One such measurement is the deciview, which
is the principal metric used by the RHR. Under many circumstances, a
change in one deciview will be perceived by the human eye to be the
same on both clear and hazy days. The deciview is unitless. It is
proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric extinction of
light, which is the perceived dimming of light due to it being
scattered and absorbed as it passes through the atmosphere.
Atmospheric light extinction (b\ext\) is a metric used for
expressing visibility and is measured in inverse megameters
(Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>). The EPA's August 20, 2019 Guidance on Regional
Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period
(``2019 Guidance'') offers the flexibility for the use of light
extinction in certain cases. Light extinction can be simpler to use
in calculations than deciviews because it is not a logarithmic
function. See, e.g., 2019 Guidance at 16, 19, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>. The formula for the deciview is 10 ln
(b\ext\)/10 Mm<SUP>-1</SUP>). 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address regional haze visibility impairment, the 1999 RHR
established an iterative planning process that requires both States in
which Class I areas are located and states ``the emissions from which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility'' in a Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions
to address such impairment.\9\ Under the CAA, each SIP submission must
contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.'' \10\ The
initial round of SIP submissions also had to address the statutory
requirement that certain older, larger sources of visibility impairing
pollutants install and operate the best available retrofit technology
(BART).\11\ States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December 17,
2007,\12\ with subsequent SIP submissions containing updated long-term
strategies originally due July 31, 2018, and every ten years
thereafter.\13\ The EPA established in the 1999 RHR that all States
either have Class I areas within their borders or ``contain sources
whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to regional
haze in a Class I area''; therefore, all States must submit regional
haze SIPs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ CAA 169A(b)(2). The RHR expresses the statutory requirement
for states to submit plans addressing out-of-state Class I areas by
providing that states must address visibility impairment ``in each
mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be
affected by emissions from within the State.'' 40 CFR 51.308(d),
(f). See also 40 CFR 51.308(b), (f) (establishing submission dates
for iterative regional haze SIP revisions).
\10\ CAA 169A(b)(2)(B).
\11\ CAA 169A(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d), (e).
\12\ 40 CFR 51.308(b).
\13\ 64 FR 35768 (July 1, 1999).
\14\ Id. at 35721. In addition to each of the fifty states, the
EPA also concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of Columbia
must also submit regional haze plans because they either contain a
Class I area or contain sources whose emissions are reasonably
anticipated to contribute regional haze in a Class I area. See 40
CFR 51.300(b), (d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 103739]]
Much of the focus in the first implementation period of the
regional haze program, which ran from 2007 through 2018, was on
satisfying States' BART obligations. First implementation period SIPs
were additionally required to contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, of which BART
is one component. The core required elements for the first
implementation period SIPs (other than BART) are laid out in 40 CFR
51.308(d). Those provisions required that States containing Class I
areas establish reasonable progress goals (RPGs) that are measured in
deciviews and reflect the anticipated visibility conditions at the end
of the implementation period including from implementation of States'
long-term strategies. The first planning period RPGs were required to
provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. In
establishing the RPGs for any Class I area in a State, the State was
required to consider four statutory factors: the costs of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ CAA 169A(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States were also required to calculate baseline (using the five
year period of 2000-2004) and natural visibility conditions (i.e.,
visibility conditions without anthropogenic visibility impairment) for
each Class I area, and to calculate the linear rate of progress needed
to attain natural visibility conditions, assuming a starting point of
baseline visibility conditions in 2004 and ending with natural
conditions in 2064. This linear interpolation is known as the uniform
rate of progress (URP) and is used as a tracking metric to help States
assess the amount of progress they are making towards the national
visibility goal over time in each Class I area.\16\ The 1999 RHR also
provided that States' long-term strategies must include the
``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals.'' \17\
In establishing their long-term strategies, States are required to
consult with other States that also contribute to visibility impairment
in a given Class I area and include all measures necessary to obtain
their shares of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs.\18\
Section 51.308(d) also contains seven additional factors States must
consider in formulating their long-term strategies, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v), as well as provisions governing monitoring and other
implementation plan requirements.\19\ Finally, the 1999 RHR required
states to submit periodic progress reports, which are SIP revisions due
every five years that contain information on States' implementation of
their regional haze plans and an assessment of whether anything
additional is needed to make reasonable progress,\20\ and to consult
with the Federal Land Manager(s) \21\ (FLMs) responsible for each Class
I area according to the requirements in CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR
51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(2). The EPA established the
URP framework in the 1999 RHR to provide ``an equitable analytical
approach'' to assessing the rate of visibility improvement at Class
I areas across the country. The start point for the URP analysis is
2004 and the endpoint was calculated based on the amount of
visibility improvement that was anticipated to result from
implementation of existing CAA programs over the period from the
mid-1990s to approximately 2005. Assuming this rate of progress
would continue into the future, the EPA determined that natural
visibility conditions would be reached in 60 years, or 2064 (60
years from the baseline starting point of 2004). However, the EPA
did not establish 2064 as the year by which the national goal must
be reached. 64 FR at 35731-32. That is, the URP and the 2064 date
are not enforceable targets but are rather tools that ``allow for
analytical comparisons between the rate of progress that would be
achieved by the state's chosen set of control measures and the
URP.'' 82 FR 3078, 3084 (January 10, 2017).
\17\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
\18\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i), (ii).
\19\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
\20\ See 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
\21\The EPA's regulation define ``Federal Land Manager'' as
``the Secretary of the department with authority over the Federal
Class I area (or the Secretary's designee) or, with respect to
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park, the Chairman of the
Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 10, 2017, the EPA promulgated revisions to the RHR that
apply for the second and subsequent implementation periods.\22\ The
2017 rulemaking made several changes to the requirements for regional
haze SIPs to clarify States' obligations and streamline certain
regional haze requirements. The revisions to the regional haze program
for the second and subsequent implementation periods focused on the
requirement that States' SIPs contain long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. The
reasonable progress requirements as revised in the 2017 rulemaking
(referred to here as the 2017 RHR Revisions) are codified at 40 CFR
51.308(f). Among other changes, the 2017 RHR Revisions adjusted the
deadline for States to submit their second implementation period SIPs
from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, clarified the order of analysis
and the relationship between RPGs and the long-term strategy, and
focused on making visibility improvements on the days with the most
anthropogenic visibility impairment, as opposed to the days with the
most visibility impairment overall. The EPA also revised requirements
of the visibility protection program related to periodic progress
reports and FLM consultation. The specific requirements applicable to
second implementation period regional haze SIP submissions are
addressed in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA provided guidance to the States for their second
implementation period SIP submissions in the preamble to the 2017 RHR
Revisions as well as in subsequent, stand-alone guidance documents. In
August 2019, the EPA issued ``Guidance on Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2019
Guidance'').\23\ On July 8, 2021, the EPA issued a memorandum
containing ``Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State
Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation Period'' (``2021
Clarifications Memo'').\24\ Additionally, the EPA further clarified the
recommended procedures for processing ambient visibility data and
optionally adjusting the URP to account for international anthropogenic
and prescribed fire impacts in two technical guidance documents: the
December 2018 ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' (``2018
Visibility Tracking Guidance''),\25\ and the June 2020 ``Recommendation
for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data and
[[Page 103740]]
Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program'' and
associated Technical Addendum (``2020 Data Completeness Memo'').\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for
the Second Implementation Period, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period</a>, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
\24\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf</a>, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park (July 8, 2021).
\25\ Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for the
Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-guidance-tracking-visibility-progress-second-implementation-period-regional</a>, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (December 20,
2018).
\26\ Recommendation for the Use of Patched and Substituted Data
and Clarification of Data Completeness for Tracking Visibility
Progress for the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze
Program, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/memo-and-technical-addendum-ambient-data-usage-and-completeness-regional-haze-program</a>, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park
(June 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo, the EPA intends the
second implementation period of the regional haze program to secure
meaningful reductions in visibility impairing pollutants that build on
the significant progress States have achieved to date. The Agency also
recognizes that analyses regarding reasonable progress are State-
specific and that, based on States' and sources' individual
circumstances, what constitutes reasonable reductions in visibility
impairing pollutants will vary from State-to-State. While there exist
many opportunities for states to leverage both ongoing and upcoming
emission reductions under other CAA programs, the Agency expects states
to undertake rigorous reasonable progress analyses that identify
further opportunities to advance the national visibility goal
consistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements.\27\ This is
consistent with Congress's determination that a visibility protection
program is needed in addition to the CAA's National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration programs,
as further emission reductions may be necessary to adequately protect
visibility in Class I areas throughout the country.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See generally 2021 Clarifications Memo.
\28\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep No. 95-294 p. 205 (``In determining how
to best remedy the growing visibility problem in these areas of
great scenic importance, the committee realizes that as a matter of
equity, the national ambient air quality standards cannot be revised
to adequately protect visibility in all areas of the country.''),
(``the mandatory class I increments of [the PSD program] do not
adequately protect visibility in class I areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Because the air pollutants and pollution affecting visibility in
Class I areas can be transported over long distances, successful
implementation of the regional haze program requires long-term,
regional coordination among multiple jurisdictions and agencies that
have responsibility for Class I areas and the emissions that impact
visibility in those areas. To address regional haze, states need to
develop strategies in coordination with one another, considering the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs),\29\ which include
representation from state and tribal governments, the EPA, and FLMs,
were developed in the lead-up to the first implementation period to
address regional haze. RPOs evaluate technical information to better
understand how emissions from State and Tribal land impact Class I
areas across the country, pursue the development of regional strategies
to reduce emissions of particulate matter and other pollutants leading
to regional haze, and help states meet the consultation requirements of
the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ RPOs are sometimes also referred to as ``multi-
jurisdictional organizations,'' or MJOs. For the purposes of this
notice, the terms RPO and MJO are synonymous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), one of the five RPOs
described above, is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal
governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze,
visibility, and other air quality issues in the western corridor of the
United States. Member states (listed alphabetically) include: Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The
Federal partner members of WRAP are the EPA, U.S. National Parks
Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Forest
Service (USFS). There are also 468 federally recognized Tribes within
the WRAP region.
III. Requirements for Regional Haze Plans for the Second Implementation
Period
Under the CAA and the EPA's regulations, all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are required to
submit regional haze SIPs satisfying the applicable requirements for
the second implementation period of the regional haze program by July
31, 2021. Each state's SIP must contain a long-term strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of remedying any
existing and preventing any future anthropogenic visibility impairment
in Class I areas.\30\ To this end, section 51.308(f) lays out the
process by which states determine what constitutes their long-term
strategies, with the order of the requirements in section 51.308(f)(1)
through (3) generally mirroring the order of the steps in the
reasonable progress analysis \31\ and (f)(4) through (6) containing
additional, related requirements. Broadly speaking, a state first must
identify the Class I areas within the state and determine the Class I
areas outside the state in which visibility may be affected by
emissions from the state. These are the Class I areas that must be
addressed in the state's long-term strategy.\32\ For each Class I area
within its borders, a state must then calculate the baseline, current,
and natural visibility conditions for that area, as well as the
visibility improvement made to date and the URP.\33\ Each state having
a Class I area and/or emissions that may affect visibility in a Class I
area must then develop a long-term strategy that includes the
enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in such areas.
A reasonable progress determination is based on applying the four
factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) to sources of visibility-impairing
pollutants that the state has selected to assess for controls for the
second implementation period. Additionally, as further explained below,
the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately provides five
``additional factors'' \34\ that states must consider in developing
their long-term strategies.\35\ A state evaluates potential emission
reduction measures for those selected sources and determines which are
necessary to make reasonable progress. Those measures are then
incorporated into the state's long-term strategy. After a state has
developed its long-term strategy, it then establishes RPGs for each
Class I area within its borders by modeling the visibility impacts of
all reasonable progress controls at the end of the second
implementation period, i.e., in 2028, as well as the impacts of other
requirements of the CAA. The RPGs include reasonable progress controls
not only for sources in the state in which the Class I area is located,
but also for sources in other states that contribute to visibility
impairment in that area. The
[[Page 103741]]
RPGs are then compared to the baseline visibility conditions and the
URP to ensure that progress is being made towards the statutory goal of
preventing any future and remedying any existing anthropogenic
visibility impairment in Class I areas.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ CAA 169A(b)(2)(B).
\31\ The EPA explained in the 2017 RHR Revisions that we were
adopting new regulatory language in 40 CFR 51.308(f) that, unlike
the structure in 51.308(d), ``tracked the actual planning
sequence.'' (82 FR 3091, January 10, 2017).
\32\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f), (f)(2).
\33\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1).
\34\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
\35\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\36\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to satisfying the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(f)
related to reasonable progress, the regional haze SIP revisions for the
second implementation period must address the requirements in section
51.308(g)(1) through (5) pertaining to periodic reports describing
progress towards the RPGs,\37\ as well as requirements for FLM
consultation that apply to all visibility protection SIPs and SIP
revisions.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5).
\38\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state must submit its regional haze SIP and subsequent SIP
revisions to the EPA according to the requirements applicable to all
SIP revisions under the CAA and the EPA's regulations.\39\ Upon EPA
approval, a SIP is enforceable by the Agency and the public under the
CAA. If the EPA finds that a state fails to make a required SIP
revision, or if the EPA finds that a state's SIP is incomplete or
disapproves the SIP, the Agency must promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) that satisfies the applicable
requirements.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See CAA 169A(b)(2); CAA 110(a).
\40\ CAA 110(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Identification of Class I Areas
The first step in developing a regional haze SIP is for a state to
determine which Class I areas, in addition to those within its borders,
``may be affected'' by emissions from within the state. In the 1999
RHR, the EPA determined that all states contribute to visibility
impairment in at least one Class I area,\41\ and explained that the
statute and regulations lay out an ``extremely low triggering
threshold'' for determining ``whether States should be required to
engage in air quality planning and analysis as a prerequisite to
determining the need for control of emissions from sources within their
State.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 64 FR 35720-35722.
\42\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state must determine which Class I areas must be addressed by its
SIP by evaluating the total emissions of visibility impairing
pollutants from all sources within the state. While the RHR does not
require this evaluation to be conducted in any particular manner, the
EPA's 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for how such an assessment
might be accomplished, including by, where appropriate, using the
determinations previously made for the first implementation period.\43\
In addition, the determination of which Class I areas may be affected
by a state's emissions is subject to the requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iii) to ``document the technical basis, including
modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on
which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures
that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class
I Federal area it affects.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 2019 Guidance, pp. 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
As part of assessing whether a SIP submission for the second
implementation period is providing for reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, the RHR contains requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(f)(1) related to tracking visibility improvement over time. The
requirements of this subsection apply only to states having Class I
areas within their borders; the required calculations must be made for
each such Class I area. The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance
\44\ provides recommendations to assist states in satisfying their
obligations under section 51.308(f)(1); specifically, in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP to account for the
impacts of international anthropogenic emissions and prescribed fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance references and relies
on parts of the 2003 Tracking Guidance: ``Guidance for Tracking
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule,'' which can be found at
<a href="https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf">https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/visible/tracking.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR requires tracking of visibility conditions on two sets of
days: the clearest and the most impaired days. Visibility conditions
for both sets of days are expressed as the average deciview index for
the relevant five-year period (the period representing baseline or
current visibility conditions). The RHR provides that the relevant sets
of days for visibility tracking purposes are the 20 percent clearest
(the 20 percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the lowest
values of the deciview index) and 20 percent most impaired days (the 20
percent of monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amounts
of anthropogenic visibility impairment).\45\ A state must calculate
visibility conditions for both the 20 percent clearest and 20 percent
most impaired days for the baseline period of 2000-2004 and the most
recent five-year period for which visibility monitoring data are
available (representing current visibility conditions).\46\ States must
also calculate natural visibility conditions for the clearest and most
impaired days,\47\ by estimating the conditions that would exist on
those two sets of days absent anthropogenic visibility impairment.\48\
Using all these data, states must then calculate, for each Class I
area, the amount of progress made since the baseline period (2000-2004)
and how much improvement is left to achieve to reach natural visibility
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 40 CFR 51.301. This notice also refers to the 20 percent
clearest and 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired days as the
``clearest'' and ``most impaired'' or ``most anthropogenically
impaired'' days, respectively.
\46\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), (iii).
\47\ The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii) contains an error
related to the requirement for calculating two sets of natural
conditions values. The rule says ``most impaired days or the
clearest days'' where it should say ``most impaired days and
clearest days.'' This is an error that was intended to be corrected
in the 2017 RHR Revisions but did not get corrected in the final
rule language. This is supported by the preamble text at 82 FR 3098:
``In the final version of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii), an occurrence of
``or'' has been corrected to ``and'' to indicate that natural
visibility conditions for both the most impaired days and the
clearest days must be based on available monitoring information.''
\48\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the data for the set of most impaired days only, states must
plot a line between visibility conditions in the baseline period and
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area to determine the
URP--the amount of visibility improvement, measured in deciviews, that
would need to be achieved during each implementation period to achieve
natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064. The URP is used in
later steps of the reasonable progress analysis for informational
purposes and to provide a non-enforceable benchmark against which to
assess a Class I area's rate of visibility improvement.\49\
Additionally, in the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA provided states the
option of proposing to adjust the endpoint of the URP to account for
impacts of anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or
impacts of certain types of wildland prescribed fires. These
adjustments, which must be approved by the EPA, are intended to avoid
any perception that states should compensate for impacts from
international
[[Page 103742]]
anthropogenic sources and to give states the flexibility to determine
that limiting the use of wildland-prescribed fire is not necessary for
reasonable progress.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Being on or below the URP is not a ``safe harbor''; i.e.,
achieving the URP does not mean that a Class I area is making
``reasonable progress'' and does not relieve a state from using the
four statutory factors to determine what level of control is needed
to achieve such progress. See, e.g., 82 FR 3093.
\50\ 82 FR 3107 footnote 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's 2018 Visibility Tracking Guidance can be used to help
satisfy the 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) requirements, including in developing
information on baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions,
and in making optional adjustments to the URP. In addition, the 2020
Data Completeness Memo provides recommendations on the data
completeness language referenced in section 51.308(f)(1)(i) and
provides updated natural conditions estimates for each Class I area.
C. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
The core component of a regional haze SIP submission is a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze in each Class I area within a
state's borders and each Class I area that may be affected by emissions
from the state. The long-term strategy ``must include the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' \51\ The amount of progress that is
``reasonable progress'' is based on applying the four statutory factors
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) in an evaluation of potential control options
for sources of visibility impairing pollutants, which is referred to as
a ``four-factor'' analysis. The outcome of that analysis is the
emission reduction measures that a particular source or group of
sources needs to implement to make reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal.\52\ Emission reduction measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress may be either new, additional
control measures for a source, or they may be the existing emission
reduction measures that a source is already implementing.\53\ Such
measures must be represented by ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures'' (i.e., any additional
compliance tools) in a state's long-term strategy in its SIP.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\52\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
\53\ See 2019 Guidance, p. 43; 2021 Clarifications Memo, pp. 8-
10.
\54\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides the requirements for the four-
factor analysis. The first step of this analysis entails selecting the
sources to be evaluated for emission reduction measures; to this end,
the RHR requires states to consider ``major and minor stationary
sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources'' of
visibility impairing pollutants for potential four-factor control
analysis.\55\ A threshold question at this step is which visibility
impairing pollutants will be analyzed. As the EPA previously explained,
consistent with the first implementation period, the EPA generally
expects that each state will analyze at least SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> in selecting sources and determining control
measures.\56\ A state that chooses not to consider at least these two
pollutants should demonstrate why such consideration would be
unreasonable.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
\56\ 2019 Guidance p. 12, 2021 Clarifications Memo p. 4.
\57\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While states have the option to analyze all sources, the 2019
Guidance explains that ``an analysis of control measures is not
required for every source in each implementation period,'' and that
``[s]electing a set of sources for analysis of control measures in each
implementation period is . . . consistent with the Regional Haze Rule,
which sets up an iterative planning process and anticipates that a
state may not need to analyze control measures for all its sources in a
given SIP revision.'' \58\ However, given that source selection is the
basis of all subsequent control determinations, a reasonable source
selection process ``should be designed and conducted to ensure that
source selection results in a set of pollutants and sources the
evaluation of which has the potential to meaningfully reduce their
contributions to visibility impairment.'' \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ 2019 Guidance, p. 9.
\59\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA explained in the 2021 Clarifications Memo that each state
has an obligation to submit a long-term strategy that addresses the
regional haze visibility impairment that results from emissions from
within that state. Thus, source selection should focus on the in-state
contribution to visibility impairment and be designed to capture a
meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state should not decline to select its
largest in-state sources on the basis that there are even larger out-
of-state contributors.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, p. 4. Similarly, in responding to
comments on the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA explained that ``[a]
state should not fail to address its many relatively low-impact
sources merely because it only has such sources and another state
has even more low-impact sources and/or some high impact sources.''
Responses to Comments on Protection of Visibility: Amendments to
Requirements for State Plans; Proposed Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4,
2016), pp. 87-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, while states have discretion to choose any source selection
methodology that is reasonable, whatever choices they make should be
reasonably explained. To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that
a state's SIP submission include ``a description of the criteria it
used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated.''
The technical basis for source selection, which may include methods for
quantifying potential visibility impacts such as emissions divided by
distance metrics, trajectory analyses, residence time analyses, and/or
photochemical modeling, must also be appropriately documented, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
Once a state has selected the set of sources, the next step is to
determine the emissions reduction measures for those sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress for the second implementation
period.\61\ This is accomplished by considering the four factors--``the
costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy
and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such
requirements.'' \62\ The EPA has explained that the four-factor
analysis is an assessment of potential emission reduction measures
(i.e., control options) for sources; ``use of the terms `compliance'
and `subject to such requirements' in section 169A(g)(1) strongly
indicates that Congress intended the relevant determination to be the
requirements with which sources would have to comply to satisfy the
CAA's reasonable progress mandate.'' \63\ Thus, for each source it has
selected for four-factor analysis,\64\ a state must
[[Page 103743]]
consider a ``meaningful set'' of technically feasible control options
for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants.\65\ The 2019
Guidance provides that ``[a] state must reasonably pick and justify the
measures that it will consider, recognizing that there is no statutory
or regulatory requirement to consider all technically feasible measures
or any particular measures. A range of technically feasible measures
available to reduce emissions would be one way to justify a reasonable
set.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The CAA provides that, ``[i]n determining reasonable
progress there shall be taken into consideration'' the four
statutory factors. CAA 169A(g)(1). However, in addition to four-
factor analyses for selected sources, groups of sources, or source
categories, a state may also consider additional emissions reduction
measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy, e.g., from other
newly adopted, on-the-books, or on-the-way rules and measures for
sources not selected for four-factor analysis for the second
planning period.
\62\ CAA 169A(g)(1).
\63\ 82 FR 3091.
\64\ ``Each source'' or ``particular source'' is used here as
shorthand. While a source-specific analysis is one way of applying
the four factors, neither the statute nor the RHR requires states to
evaluate individual sources. Rather, states have ``the flexibility
to conduct four-factor analyses for specific sources, groups of
sources or even entire source categories, depending on state policy
preferences and the specific circumstances of each state.'' 82 FR at
3088. However, not all approaches to grouping sources for four-
factor analysis are necessarily reasonable; the reasonableness of
grouping sources in any particular instance will depend on the
circumstances and the manner in which grouping is conducted. If it
is feasible to establish and enforce different requirements for
sources or subgroups of sources, and if relevant factors can be
quantified for those sources or subgroups, then states should make a
separate reasonable progress determination for each source or
subgroup. 2021 Clarifications Memo at 7-8.
\65\ Id. at 3088.
\66\ 2019 Guidance, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's 2021 Clarifications Memo provides further guidance on
what constitutes a reasonable set of control options for consideration:
``A reasonable four-factor analysis will consider the full range of
potentially reasonable options for reducing emissions.'' \67\ In
addition to add-on controls and other retrofits (i.e., new emissions
reduction measures for sources), the EPA explained that states should
generally analyze efficiency improvements for sources' existing
measures as control options in their four-factor analyses, as in many
cases such improvements are reasonable given that they typically
involve only additional operation and maintenance costs. Additionally,
the 2021 Clarifications Memo provides that states that have assumed a
higher emissions rate than a source has achieved or could potentially
achieve using its existing measures should also consider lower
emissions rates as potential control options. That is, a state should
consider a source's recent actual and projected emission rates to
determine if it could reasonably attain lower emission rates with its
existing measures. If so, the state should analyze the lower emission
rate as a control option for reducing emissions.\68\ The EPA's
recommendations to analyze potential efficiency improvements and
achievable lower emission rates apply to both sources that have been
selected for four-factor analysis and those that have forgone a four-
factor analysis on the basis of existing ``effective controls.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, p. 7.
\68\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, p. 7.
\69\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo pp. 5, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identifying a reasonable set of potential control options for
the sources it has selected, a state then collects information on the
four factors with regard to each option identified. The EPA has also
explained that, in addition to the four statutory factors, states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an additional factor alongside the four statutory
factors.\70\ The 2019 Guidance provides recommendations for the types
of information that can be used to characterize the four factors (with
or without visibility), as well as ways in which states might
reasonably consider and balance that information to determine which of
the potential control options is necessary to make reasonable
progress.\71\ The 2021 Clarifications Memo contains further guidance on
how states can reasonably consider modeled visibility impacts or
benefits in the context of a four-factor analysis.\72\ Specifically,
the EPA explained that while visibility can reasonably be used when
comparing and choosing between multiple reasonable control options, it
should not be used to summarily reject controls that are reasonable
given the four statutory factors.\73\ Ultimately, while states have
discretion to reasonably weigh the factors and to determine what level
of control is needed, section 51.308(f)(2)(i) provides that a state
``must include in its implementation plan a description of . . . how
the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measure
for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016) (December 2016), Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0531, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p. 186; 2019
Guidance, pp. 36-37.
\71\ See 2019 Guidance, pp. 30-36.
\72\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, pp. 12-15.
\73\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, section 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires states to
determine the emission reduction measures for sources that are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four factors.
Pursuant to section 51.308(f)(2), measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal must be
included in a state's long-term strategy and in its SIP.\74\ If the
outcome of a four-factor analysis is a new, additional emission
reduction measure for a source, that new measure is necessary to make
reasonable progress towards remedying existing anthropogenic visibility
impairment and must be included in the SIP. If the outcome of a four-
factor analysis is that no new measures are reasonable for a source,
continued implementation of the source's existing measures is generally
necessary to prevent future emission increases and thus to make
reasonable progress towards the second part of the national visibility
goal: preventing future anthropogenic visibility impairment.\75\ That
is, when the result of a four-factor analysis is that no new measures
are necessary to make reasonable progress, the source's existing
measures are generally necessary to make reasonable progress and must
be included in the SIP. However, there may be circumstances in which a
state can demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress. Specifically, if a state can
demonstrate that a source will continue to implement its existing
measures and will not increase its emissions rate, it may not be
necessary to have those measures in the long-term strategy to prevent
future emissions increases and future visibility impairment. The EPA's
2021 Clarifications Memo provides further explanation and guidance on
how states may demonstrate that a source's existing measures are not
necessary to make reasonable progress.\76\ If the state can make such a
demonstration, it need not include a source's existing measures in the
long-term strategy or its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ States may choose to, but are not required to, include
measures in their long-term strategies beyond just the emission
reduction measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. See
2021 Clarifications Memo at 16. For example, states with smoke
management programs may choose to submit their smoke management
plans to EPA for inclusion in their SIPs but are not required to do
so. See, e.g., 82 FR at 3108-3109 (requirement to consider smoke
management practices and smoke management programs under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2)(iv) does not require states to adopt such practices or
programs into their SIPs, although they may elect to do so).
\75\ See CAA 169A(a)(1).
\76\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo, pp. 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with source selection, the characterization of information on
each of the factors is also subject to the documentation requirement in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iii). The reasonable progress analysis, including
source selection, information gathering, characterization of the four
statutory factors (and potentially visibility), balancing of the four
factors, and selection of the emission reduction measures that
represent reasonable progress, is a technically complex exercise, but
also a flexible one that provides states with bounded discretion to
design and implement approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
Given this flexibility, section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) plays an important
function in requiring a state to document the technical basis for its
decision making so that the public and the EPA can comprehend and
evaluate the information and analysis the state relied upon to
determine what
[[Page 103744]]
emission reduction measures must be in place to make reasonable
progress. The technical documentation must include the modeling,
monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information on which the
state relied to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. This documentation requirement can be met through the
provision of and reliance on technical analyses developed through a
regional planning process, so long as that process and its output has
been approved by all state participants. In addition to the explicit
regulatory requirement to document the technical basis of their
reasonable progress determinations, states are also subject to the
general principle that those determinations must be reasonably moored
to the statute.\77\ That is, a state's decisions about the emission
reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress must
be consistent with the statutory goal of remedying existing and
preventing future visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See Arizona ex rel. Darwin v. U.S. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531
(9th Cir. 2016); Nebraska v. U.S. EPA, 812 F.3d 662, 668 (8th Cir.
2016); North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013);
Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1206, 1208-10 (10th Cir. 2013); cf.
also Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, 803 F.3d 151, 165 (3d
Cir. 2015); Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S.
461, 485, 490 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The four statutory factors (and potentially visibility) are used to
determine what emission reduction measures for selected sources must be
included in a state's long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress. Additionally, the RHR at 40 CFR 51.3108(f)(2)(iv) separately
provides five ``additional factors'' \78\ that states must consider in
developing their long-term strategies: (1) Emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address
reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (2) measures to reduce
the impacts of construction activities; (3) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (4) basic smoke management practices for
prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation
management purposes and smoke management programs; and (5) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point,
area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the
long-term strategy. The 2019 Guidance provides that a state may satisfy
this requirement by considering these additional factors in the process
of selecting sources for four-factor analysis, when performing that
analysis, or both, and that not every one of the additional factors
needs to be considered at the same stage of the process.\79\ The EPA
provided further guidance on the five additional factors in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, explaining that a state should generally not
reject cost-effective and otherwise reasonable controls merely because
there have been emission reductions since the first planning period
owing to other ongoing air pollution control programs or merely because
visibility is otherwise projected to improve at Class I areas.
Additionally, states generally should not rely on these additional
factors to summarily assert that the state has already made sufficient
progress and, therefore, no sources need to be selected or no new
controls are needed regardless of the outcome of four-factor
analyses.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ The five ``additional factors'' for consideration in
section 51.308(f)(2)(iv) are distinct from the four factors listed
in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) that states
must consider and apply to sources in determining reasonable
progress.
\79\ See 2019 Guidance, p. 21.
\80\ 2021 Clarifications Memo, p. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the air pollution that causes regional haze crosses state
boundaries, section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) requires a state to consult with
other states that also have emissions that are reasonably anticipated
to contribute to visibility impairment in a given Class I area.
Consultation allows for each state that impacts visibility in an area
to share whatever technical information, analyses, and control
determinations may be necessary to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. This coordination may be managed through inter-
and intra-RPO consultation and the development of regional emissions
strategies; additional consultations between states outside of RPO
processes may also occur. If a state, pursuant to consultation, agrees
that certain measures (e.g., a certain emission limitation) are
necessary to make reasonable progress at a Class I area, it must
include those measures in its SIP.\81\ Additionally, the RHR requires
that states that contribute to visibility impairment at the same Class
I area consider the emission reduction measures the other contributing
states have identified as being necessary to make reasonable progress
for their own sources.\82\ If a state has been asked to consider or
adopt certain emission reduction measures, but ultimately determines
those measures are not necessary to make reasonable progress, that
state must document in its SIP the actions taken to resolve the
disagreement.\83\ The EPA will consider the technical information and
explanations presented by the submitting state and the state with which
it disagrees when considering whether to approve the state's SIP.\84\
Under all circumstances, a state must document in its SIP submission
all substantive consultations with other contributing states.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A).
\82\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(B).
\83\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
\84\ See id.; 2019 Guidance, p. 53.
\85\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
Reasonable progress goals ``measure the progress that is projected
to be achieved by the control measures states have determined are
necessary to make reasonable progress based on a four-factor
analysis.'' \86\ Their primary purpose is to assist the public and the
EPA in assessing the reasonableness of states' long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal.\87\
States in which Class I areas are located must establish two RPGs, both
in deciviews--one representing visibility conditions on the clearest
days and one representing visibility on the most anthropogenically
impaired days--for each area within their borders.\88\ The two RPGs are
intended to reflect the projected impacts, on the two sets of days, of
the emission reduction measures the state with the Class I area, as
well as all other contributing states, have included in their long-term
strategies for the second implementation period.\89\ The RPGs also
account for the projected impacts of implementing other CAA
requirements, including non-SIP based requirements. Because RPGs are
the modeled result of the measures in states' long-term strategies (as
well as other measures required under the CAA), they cannot be
determined before states have conducted their four-factor analyses and
determined the control measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 82 FR 3091.
\87\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii)-(iv).
\88\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
\89\ RPGs are intended to reflect the projected impacts of the
measures all contributing states include in their long-term
strategies. However, due to the timing of analyses, control
determinations by other states, and other on-going emissions
changes, a particular state's RPGs may not reflect all control
measures and emissions reductions that are expected to occur by the
end of the implementation period. The 2019 Guidance provides
recommendations for addressing the timing of RPG calculations when
states are developing their long-term strategies on disparate
schedules, as well as for adjusting RPGs using a post-modeling
approach. 2019 Guidance, pp. 47-48.
\90\ See 2021 Clarifications Memo p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second implementation period, the RPGs are set for 2028.
Reasonable progress goals are not
[[Page 103745]]
enforceable targets; \91\ rather, they ``provide a way for the states
to check the projected outcome of the [long-term strategy] against the
goals for visibility improvement.'' \92\ While states are not legally
obligated to achieve the visibility conditions described in their RPGs,
section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires that ``[t]he long-term strategy and
the reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline period and
ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the
baseline period.'' Thus, states are required to have emission reduction
measures in their long-term strategies that are projected to achieve
visibility conditions on the most impaired days that are better than
the baseline period and shows no degradation on the clearest days
compared to the clearest days from the baseline period. The baseline
period for the purpose of this comparison is the baseline visibility
condition--the annual average visibility condition for the period 2000-
2004.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(iii).
\92\ 2019 Guidance, p. 46.
\93\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(i), 82 FR 3097-98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So that RPGs may also serve as a metric for assessing the amount of
progress a state is making towards the national visibility goal, the
RHR requires states with Class I areas to compare the 2028 RPG for the
most impaired days to the corresponding point on the URP line
(representing visibility conditions in 2028 if visibility were to
improve at a linear rate from conditions in the baseline period of
2000-2004 to natural visibility conditions in 2064). If the most
impaired days RPG in 2028 is above the URP (i.e., if visibility
conditions are improving more slowly than the rate described by the
URP), each state that contributes to visibility impairment in the Class
I area must demonstrate, based on the four-factor analysis required
under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i), that no additional emission reduction
measures would be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy.\94\
To this end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requires that each state
contributing to visibility impairment in a Class I area that is
projected to improve more slowly than the URP provide ``a robust
demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to determine
which sources or groups [of] sources were evaluated and how the four
factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration
in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy.''
The 2019 Guidance provides suggestions about how such a ``robust
demonstration'' might be conducted.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii).
\95\ See 2019 Guidance, pp. 50-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2017 RHR, 2019 Guidance, and 2021 Clarifications Memo also
explain that projecting an RPG that is on or below the URP based on
only on-the-books and/or on-the-way control measures (i.e., control
measures already required or anticipated before the four-factor
analysis is conducted) is not a ``safe harbor'' from the CAA's and
RHR's requirement that all states must conduct a four-factor analysis
to determine what emission reduction measures constitute reasonable
progress. The URP is a planning metric used to gauge the amount of
progress made thus far and the amount left before reaching natural
visibility conditions. However, the URP is not based on consideration
of the four statutory factors and therefore cannot answer the question
of whether the amount of progress being made in any particular
implementation period is ``reasonable progress.'' \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ See 82 FR 3093, 3099-3100; 2019 Guidance, p. 22; 2021
Clarifications Memo, pp. 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Monitoring Strategy and Other State Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) requires states to have certain strategies and
elements in place for assessing and reporting on visibility. Individual
requirements under this subsection apply either to states with Class I
areas within their borders, states with no Class I areas but that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in any Class I area, or both. A state with Class I areas within its
borders must submit with its SIP revision a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze visibility
impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the
state. SIP revisions for such states must also provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess visibility conditions in Class I areas, as well as reporting of
all visibility monitoring data to the EPA at least annually. Compliance
with the monitoring strategy requirement may be met through a state's
participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring network, which is used to measure
visibility impairment caused by air pollution at the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program.\97\ The Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data is used to
determine the 20 percent most anthropogenically impaired and 20 percent
clearest sets of days every year at each Class I area and tracks
visibility impairment over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), (f)(6)(i), (f)(6)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All states' SIPs must provide for procedures by which monitoring
data and other information are used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment
in affected Class I areas.\98\ Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) further requires
that all states' SIPs provide for 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 the most recent year for which data are available and
estimates of future projected emissions. States must also include
commitments to update their inventories periodically. The inventories
themselves do not need to be included as elements in the SIP and are
not subject to the EPA review as part of the Agency's evaluation of a
SIP revision.\99\ All states' SIPs must also provide for any other
elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, that
are necessary for states to assess and report on visibility.\100\ Per
the 2019 Guidance, a state may note in its regional haze SIP that its
compliance with the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) in 40 CFR part
51 Subpart A satisfies the requirement to provide for an emissions
inventory for the most recent year for which data are available. To
satisfy the requirement to provide estimates of future projected
emissions, a state may explain in its SIP how projected emissions were
developed for use in establishing RPGs for its own and nearby Class I
areas.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(ii), (iii).
\99\ See ``Step 8: Additional requirements for regional haze
SIPs'' in 2019 Guidance, p. 55.
\100\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
\101\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate from the requirements related to monitoring for regional
haze purposes under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6), the RHR also contains a
requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) related to any additional monitoring
that may be needed to address visibility impairment in Class I areas
from a single source or a small group of sources. This is called
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment.'' \102\ Under this
provision, if the EPA or the FLM of an affected Class I area has
advised a state that additional monitoring is needed to assess
reasonably attributable visibility
[[Page 103746]]
impairment, the state must include in its SIP revision for the second
implementation period an appropriate strategy for evaluating such
impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ The EPA's visibility protection regulations define
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment'' as ``visibility
impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from
one, or a small number of sources.'' 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires a state's regional haze SIP revision
to address the requirements of paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through
(5) so that the plan revision due in 2021 will serve also as a progress
report addressing the period since submission of the progress report
for the first implementation period. The regional haze progress report
requirement is designed to inform the public and the EPA about a
state's implementation of its existing long-term strategy and whether
such implementation is in fact resulting in the expected visibility
improvement.\103\ To this end, every state's SIP revision for the
second implementation period is required to describe the status of
implementation of all measures included in the state's long-term
strategy, including BART and reasonable progress emission reduction
measures from the first implementation period, and the resulting
emissions reductions.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See 81 FR 26942, 26950 (May 4, 2016); 82 FR 3119 (January
10, 2017).
\104\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A core component of the progress report requirements is an
assessment of changes in visibility conditions on the clearest and most
impaired days. For second implementation period progress reports,
section 51.308(g)(3) requires states with Class I areas within their
borders to first determine current visibility conditions for each area
on the most impaired and clearest days,\105\ and then to calculate the
difference between those current conditions and baseline (2000-2004)
visibility conditions to assess progress made to date.\106\ States must
also assess the changes in visibility impairment for the most impaired
and clearest days since they submitted their first implementation
period progress reports.\107\ Since different states submitted their
first implementation period progress reports at different times, the
starting point for this assessment will vary state by state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(i)(B).
\106\ See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(ii)(B).
\107\ See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)(iii)(B), (f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, states must provide analyses tracking the change in
emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all
sources and activities within the state over the period since they
submitted their first implementation period progress reports.\108\
Changes in emissions should be identified by the type of source or
activity. Section 51.308(g)(5) also addresses changes in emissions
since the period addressed by the previous progress report and requires
states' SIP revisions to include an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state. This
assessment must explain whether these changes in emissions were
anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving visibility relative to what the state
projected based on its long-term strategy for the first implementation
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), (f)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
Clean Air Act section 169A(d) requires that before a state holds a
public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP revision, it must
consult with the appropriate FLM or FLMs; pursuant to that
consultation, the state must include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions
and recommendations in the notice to the public. Consistent with this
statutory requirement, the RHR also requires that states ``provide the
[FLM] with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at a point
early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy
emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations
provided by the [FLM] can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on
the long-term strategy.'' \109\ Consultation that occurs 120 days prior
to any public hearing or public comment opportunity will be deemed
``early enough,'' but the RHR provides that in any event the
opportunity for consultation must be provided at least 60 days before a
public hearing or comment opportunity. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of visibility
impairment in any Class I area and their recommendations on the
development and implementation of strategies to address such
impairment.\110\ For the EPA to evaluate whether FLM consultation
meeting the requirements of the RHR has occurred, the SIP submission
should include documentation of the timing and content of such
consultation. The SIP revision submitted to the EPA must also describe
how the state addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.\111\
Finally, a SIP revision 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.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
\110\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2).
\111\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3).
\112\ 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of California's Regional Haze Submission for
the Second Implementation Period
A. Background on California's First Implementation Period SIP
Submission
California submitted its initial regional haze plan under 40 CFR
51.308 to the EPA on March 16, 2009 (hereinafter ``2009 Submittal'').
The EPA approved the 2009 Submittal on June 14, 2011.\113\ On June 16,
2014, California submitted its Progress Report to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). The EPA approved the Progress Report on
April 1, 2015.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ 76 FR 34608.
\114\ 80 FR 17327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. California's Second Implementation Period SIP Submission
In accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(f), on August 9, 2022, CARB submitted a revision to the
California SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second
implementation period, which runs through 2028. California made its
2022 Regional Haze Plan available for public comment on May 13, 2022.
CARB received and responded to public comments.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Public comments and CARB responses are available on the
CARB website at <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/RegionalHazeResponseToPublicComments.pdf">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/RegionalHazeResponseToPublicComments.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections describe the Plan, including analyses
conducted by the WRAP and CARB, CARB's assessment of progress made
since the first implementation period in reducing emissions of
visibility impairing pollutants, and the visibility improvement
progress at its Class I areas and nearby Class I areas. This notice
also contains the EPA's evaluation of the Plan against the requirements
of the CAA and RHR for the second implementation period of the regional
haze program.
C. Identification of Class I Areas
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires each state in which any
Class I area is located or ``the emissions from which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
[[Page 103747]]
of visibility'' in a Class I area to have a plan for making reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. The RHR implements this
statutory requirement at 40 CFR 51.308(f), which provides that each
state's plan ``must address regional haze in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by
emissions from within the State,'' and (f)(2), which requires each
state's plan to include a long-term strategy that addresses regional
haze in such Class I areas.
The EPA explained in the 1999 RHR preamble that the CAA section
169A(b)(2) requirement that states submit SIPs to address visibility
impairment establishes ``an `extremely low triggering threshold' in
determining which States should submit SIPs for regional haze.'' \116\
In concluding that each of the contiguous 48 states and the District of
Columbia meet this threshold,\117\ the EPA relied on ``a large body of
evidence demonstrat[ing] that long-range transport of fine PM
contributes to regional haze,'' \118\ including modeling studies that
``preliminarily demonstrated that each State not having a Class I area
had emissions contributing to impairment in at least one downwind Class
I area.'' \119\ In addition to the technical evidence supporting a
conclusion that each state contributes to existing visibility
impairment, the EPA also explained that the second half of the national
visibility goal--preventing future visibility impairment--requires
having a framework in place to address future growth in visibility-
impairing emissions and makes it inappropriate to ``establish criteria
for excluding States or geographic areas from consideration as
potential contributors to regional haze visibility impairment.'' \120\
Thus, the EPA concluded that the agency's ``statutory authority and the
scientific evidence are sufficient to require all States to develop
regional haze SIPs to ensure the prevention of any future impairment of
visibility, and to conduct further analyses to determine whether
additional control measures are needed to ensure reasonable progress in
remedying existing impairment in downwind Class I areas.'' \121\ The
EPA's 2017 revisions to the RHR did not disturb this conclusion.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ 64 FR at 35721.
\117\ The EPA determined that ``there is more than sufficient
evidence to support our conclusion that emissions from each of the
48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area.'' 64 FR at 35721. Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands must also submit regional haze plans because they contain
Class I areas.
\118\ Id.
\119\ Id. at 35722.
\120\ Id. at 35721.
\121\ Id. at 35722.
\122\ 82 FR at 3094.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has 29 Class I areas within its borders: Redwood
National Park; Marble Mountain Wilderness; Lava Beds National Monument;
South Warner Wilderness; Thousand Lakes Wilderness; Lassen Volcanic
National Park; Caribou Wilderness; Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness
(includes land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management); Point
Reyes National Seashore; Ventana Wilderness; Pinnacles National
Monument; Desolation Wilderness; Mokelumne Wilderness; Emigrant
Wilderness; Hoover Wilderness; Yosemite National Park; Ansel Adams
Wilderness; Kaiser Wilderness; John Muir Wilderness; Kings Canyon
National Park; Sequoia National Park; Dome Lands Wilderness; San Rafael
Wilderness; San Gabriel Wilderness; Cucamonga Wilderness; San Gorgonio
Wilderness; San Jacinto Wilderness; Agua Tibia Wilderness; and Joshua
Tree National Park.
In its submission, CARB also briefly assessed the contribution of
emissions from California to visibility impairment at Class I areas in
three neighboring states: Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona.\123\ CARB noted
that the projected share of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate
attributable to California sources ranges from 0.1 to 1.7 percent and
0.1 to 1.0 percent, respectively, of the total light extinction budgets
at Class I areas in neighboring states.\124\ These total light
extinction budgets include international and natural emissions, which
cannot be addressed by states, and therefore do not provide a
meaningful assessment of the contribution of California's sources
relative to other U.S. anthropogenic sources. CARB also did not
consider whether emissions from California may affect Class I areas in
any states other than its three neighboring states.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, pp. 64-68.
\124\ Id. at 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in further detail below, the EPA is proposing to find
that the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan does not fully meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2) related to the development of a
long-term strategy. Relatedly, the State failed to identify specific
out-of-state Class I areas may be affected by emissions from
California.
D. Calculations of Baseline, Current, and Natural Visibility
Conditions; Progress to Date; and the Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(f)(1) requires states to determine the following for
``each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State'':
baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days,
progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days, the
differences between current visibility conditions and natural
visibility conditions, and the URP. This section also provides the
option for states to propose adjustments to the URP line for a Class I
area to account for visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources
outside the United States and/or the impacts from wildland prescribed
fires that were conducted for certain, specified objectives.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, CARB used visibility
data from IMPROVE monitoring sites for 2000-2004 for baseline
visibility.\126\ CARB also obtained visibility data from IMPROVE
monitoring data for 2014-2018, which it used to represent current
visibility conditions. CARB determined natural visibility by estimating
the natural concentrations of visibility-impairing pollutants and then
calculating total light extinction with the IMPROVE algorithm.
Comparison of baseline conditions to natural visibility conditions
shows the improvement necessary to attain natural visibility by 2064
measured in deciviews of improvement per year that represents the URP.
The calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility
conditions, as well as the progress to date and differences between
current visibility condition and natural visibility condition can be
found in Chapter 2 of the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan and are
summarized in tables 1 and 2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Plan, p. 22.
[[Page 103748]]
Table 1--Visibility Conditions for Clearest Days
[dv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progress
IMPROVE site Class I areas Baseline Current to date Natural Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABE1........................... Lava Beds National 3.2 2.5 0.7 1.3 1.2
Monument.
South Warner
Wilderness Area.
REDW1........................... Redwood National 6.1 5.3 0.8 3.5 1.8
Park.
TRIN1........................... Marble Mountain 3.4 3.1 0.3 1.2 1.9
Wilderness.
Yolla Bolly-Middle
Eel Wilderness
Area.
LAVO1........................... Caribou Wilderness 2.7 2.2 0.5 1.0 1.2
Area.
Lassen Volcanic
National Park.
Thousand Lakes
Wilderness.
BLIS1........................... Desolation 2.5 1.8 0.7 0.4 1.4
Wilderness Area.
Mokelumne
Wilderness Area.
PORE1........................... Point Reyes 10.5 8.2 2.3 4.8 3.4
National Seashore.
YOSE1........................... Emigrant 3.4 2.9 0.5 1.0 1.9
Wilderness Area.
Yosemite National
Park.
HOOV1........................... Hoover Wilderness 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.9
Area.
KAIS1........................... Ansel Adams 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.0 1.5
Wilderness Area.
John Muir
Wilderness Area.
Kaiser Wilderness
Area.
PINN1........................... Pinnacles National 8.9 7.7 1.2 3.5 4.2
Park.
Ventana Wilderness
Area.
SEQU1........................... Kings Canyon 8.8 7.0 1.8 2.3 4.7
National Park.
Sequoia National
Park.
RAFA1........................... San Rafael 6.5 4.9 1.6 1.8 3.1
Wilderness Area.
DOME1........................... Domeland 5.1 4.4 0.7 1.2 3.2
Wilderness Area.
SAGA1........................... Cucamonga 4.8 2.8 2.0 0.4 2.4
Wilderness Area.
San Gabriel
Wilderness Area.
SAGO1........................... San Gorgonio 5.4 3.3 2.1 1.2 2.1
Wilderness Area.
San Jacinto
Wilderness Area.
JOSH1........................... Joshua Tree 6.1 4.7 1.4 1.7 3.0
National Park.
AGTI1........................... Agua Tibia 9.6 7.0 2.6 2.9 4.1
Wilderness Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, 38, Tables 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-9 and 2-10. Baseline conditions are
for 2000-2004. Current Conditions are for 2014-2018. Progress to date is Baseline Minus Current. Difference is
Current minus Natural Conditions.
Table 2--Visibility Conditions for Most-Impaired Days
[dv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progress
IMPROVE site Class I areas Baseline Current to date Natural Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABE1........................... Lava Beds National 11.3 9.7 1.6 6.2 3.5
Monument.
South Warner
Wilderness Area.
REDW1........................... Redwood National 13.7 12.6 1.1 8.6 4.0
Park.
TRIN1........................... Marble Mountain 11.9 10.4 1.5 6.5 3.9
Wilderness.
Yolla Bolly-Middle
Eel Wild. Area.
LAVO1........................... Caribou Wilderness 11.5 10.2 1.3 6.1 4.1
Area.
Lassen Volcanic
National Park.
Thousand Lakes
Wilderness.
BLIS1........................... Desolation 10.1 9.3 0.8 4.9 4.4
Wilderness Area.
Mokelumne
Wilderness Area.
PORE1........................... Point Reyes 19.4 15.3 4.1 9.7 5.6
National Seashore.
YOSE1........................... Emigrant 13.5 11.6 1.9 6.3 5.3
Wilderness Area.
Yosemite National
Park.
HOOV1........................... Hoover Wilderness 8.9 7.8 1.1 4.9 2.9
Area.
KAIS1........................... Ansel Adams 12.9 11.0 1.9 6.1 4.9
Wilderness Area.
John Muir
Wilderness Area.
Kaiser Wilderness
Area.
PINN1........................... Pinnacles National 17.0 14.1 2.9 6.9 7.2
Park.
Ventana Wilderness
Area.
SEQU1........................... Kings Canyon 23.2 18.4 4.8 6.3 12.1
National Park.
Sequoia National
Park.
RAFA1........................... San Rafael 17.3 14.1 3.2 6.8 7.3
Wilderness Area.
DOME1........................... Domeland 17.2 15.1 2.1 6.2 8.9
Wilderness Area.
SAGA1........................... Cucamonga 17.9 13.2 4.7 6.1 7.1
Wilderness Area.
San Gabriel
Wilderness Area.
SAGO1........................... San Gorgonio 20.4 14.4 6.0 6.2 8.2
Wilderness Area.
San Jacinto
Wilderness Area.
JOSH1........................... Joshua Tree 17.7 12.9 4.8 6.1 6.8
National Park.
[[Page 103749]]
AGTI1........................... Agua Tibia 21.6 16.3 5.3 7.7 8.6
Wilderness Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, Tables 2-3, 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, 2-9 and 2-11. Baseline conditions are for
2000-2004. Current Conditions are for 2014-2018. Progress to date is Baseline Minus Current. Difference is
Current minus Natural Conditions.
CARB chose to adjust its URP for international anthropogenic
impacts and to account for the impacts of wildland prescribed fires
using adjustments developed by the WRAP.\127\ The WRAP/WAQS Regional
Haze modeling platform used scaled 2014 NEI wildland prescribed fire
data for purposes of calculating the URP adjustments. WRAP used the
results from the CAMx 2028OTBa2 High-Level Source Apportionment run to
obtain concentrations due to international emissions and to prescribed
fire. These concentrations were then used in a relative sense to
estimate the contributions for use in adjusting the URP. That is, the
modeled relative effect of removing their emissions (relative response
factors) was applied to projections of 2028 concentrations. The
resulting concentration decrease was taken as the contribution of these
sources. The international and prescribed fire contributions were
therefore calculated in a fashion consistent with each other and with
the 2028 projections. This approach is consistent with the default
method described in the EPA's September 2019 regional haze modeling
Technical Support Document (``EPA 2019 Modeling TSD'') \128\ and with
the source apportionment approach described in the EPA's 2018
Visibility Tracking Guidance.\129\ Two different adjusted glidepath
options, ``International Emissions Only (A)'' and ``International
Emissions + Wildland Rx Fire (B)'', were made available on the WRAP
Technical Support System (TSS) \130\ to adjust the URP glidepath end
points projections at 2064 for Class I Federal areas on the most
impaired days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Plan, pp. 51, 135-136.
\128\ Memorandum from Richard A. Wayland, Director, Air Quality
Assessment Division, EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Subject: ``Availability of Modeling Data and Associated Technical
Support Document for the EPA's Updated 2028 Visibility Air Quality
Modeling,'' September 19, 2019, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-support-document-epas-updated-2028-regional-haze-modeling">https://www.epa.gov/visibility/technical-support-document-epas-updated-2028-regional-haze-modeling</a>.
\129\ Memorandum from Richard A. Wayland, Director, Air Quality
Assessment Division, EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Subject: ``Technical Guidance on Tracking Visibility Progress for
the Second Implementation Period of the Regional Haze Program,''
December 20, 2018, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/technical_guidance_tracking_visibility_progress.pdf</a>.
\130\ WRAP Technical Support System, <a href="http://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/">http://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/</a>.
Table 3--URP for Most-Impaired Days
[dv/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE site Class I area Unadjusted URP Adjusted URP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABE1....................................... Lava Beds National Monument... 0.09 0.07
South Warner Wilderness Area..
REDW1....................................... Redwood National Park......... 0.09 0.07
TRIN1....................................... Marble Mountain Wilderness 0.09 0.05
Area.
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel
Wilderness Area.
LAVO1....................................... Thousand Lakes Wilderness Area 0.09 0.06
Lassen Volcanic National Park.
Caribou Wilderness Area.......
BLIS1....................................... Desolation Wilderness Area.... 0.09 0.06
Mokelumne Wilderness Area.....
PORE1....................................... Point Reyes National Seashore. 0.16 0.14
YOSE1....................................... Emigrant Wilderness Area...... 0.12 0.08
Yosemite National Park........
HOOV1....................................... Hoover Wilderness Area........ 0.07 0.03
KAIS1....................................... Ansel Adams Wilderness Area... 0.11 0.06
John Muir Wilderness Area.....
Kaiser Wilderness Area........
PINN1....................................... Pinnacles National Park....... \a\ 0.11 0.13
Ventana Wilderness Area.......
SEQU1....................................... Kings Canyon National Park.... 0.28 0.21
Sequoia National Park.........
RAFA1....................................... San Rafael Wilderness Area.... 0.18 0.14
DOME1....................................... Domeland Wilderness Area...... 0.18 0.13
SAGA1....................................... San Gabriel Wilderness Area... 0.20 0.17
Cucamonga Wilderness Area.....
SAGO1....................................... San Gorgonio Wilderness Area.. 0.24 0.20
San Jacinto Wilderness Area...
JOSH1....................................... Joshua Tree National Park..... 0.19 0.15
AGTI1....................................... Agua Tibia Wilderness Area.... 0.23 0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, Tables 8-3, 8-4, 8-5.
[[Page 103750]]
\a\ The unadjusted URP for the PINN1 IMPROVE monitor reported in the Plan appears to have been incorrectly
transcribed from its source. The reported value of 0.11 dv/year should actually be 0.17 dv/year, based on the
2004 and the 2024 natural conditions endpoint data reported in the WRAP TSS. This error does not affect other
calculations or conclusions in the Plan.
We propose to find that the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1) related to the
calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions;
progress to date; differences between current visibility conditions and
natural visibility conditions, and the uniform rate of progress for
each of its Class I areas for the second implementation period. We also
propose to find that CARB has estimated the impacts from anthropogenic
sources outside the United States and wildland prescribed fires using
scientifically valid data and methods.
E. Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze
Each state having a Class I area within its borders or emissions
that may affect visibility in a Class I area must develop a long-term
strategy for making reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal.\131\ As explained in the Background section of this notice,
reasonable progress is achieved when all states contributing to
visibility impairment in a Class I area are implementing the measures
determined--through application of the four statutory factors to
sources of visibility impairing pollutants--to be necessary to make
reasonable progress.\132\ Each state's long-term strategy must include
the enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress.\133\ All new
(i.e., additional) measures that are the outcome of four-factor
analyses are necessary to make reasonable progress and must be in the
long-term strategy. If the outcome of a four-factor analysis and other
measures necessary to make reasonable progress is that no new measures
are reasonable for a source, that source's existing measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress, unless the state can demonstrate
that the source will continue to implement those measures and will not
increase its emission rate. Existing measures that are necessary to
make reasonable progress must also be in the long-term strategy. In
developing its long-term strategies, a state must also consider the
five additional factors in section 51.308(f)(2)(iv). As part of its
reasonable progress determinations, the state must describe the
criteria used to determine which sources or group of sources were
evaluated (i.e., subjected to four-factor analysis) for the second
implementation period and how the four factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the emission reduction measures for
inclusion in the long-term strategy.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ CAA 169A(b)(2)(B).
\132\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i).
\133\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\134\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consultation requirements of section 51.308(f)(2)(ii) provide
that states must consult with other states that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area to
develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the
emission reductions measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) require states to
consider the emission reduction measures identified by other states as
necessary for reasonable progress and to include agreed upon measures
in their SIPs, respectively. Section 51.308(f)(2)(ii)(C) speaks to what
happens if states cannot agree on what measures are necessary to make
reasonable progress.
Section 51.308(f)(2)(iii) requires that the emissions information
considered to determine the measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress include information on emissions for the most
recent year for which the state has submitted triennial emissions data
to the EPA (or a more recent year), with a 12-month exemption period
for newly submitted data.
The following sections summarize how the 2022 California Regional
Haze SIP addressed the requirements of section 51.308(f)(2) and the
EPA's evaluation with respect to these requirements.
1. Determination of Which Pollutants To Consider
To evaluate which pollutants had the largest impact at California's
Class I areas, CARB considered light extinction budgets that showed the
relative contribution from different pollutants measured during 2014-
2018 at IMPROVE monitors in the State. Overall (including both U.S. and
non-U.S. sources) CARB found that, on the most impaired days, ammonium
nitrate and ammonium sulfate comprised the largest portion of the light
extinction budgets at sites near urban areas, while ammonium sulfate
and organic mass formed the largest portion of light extinction budgets
at sites further from urban areas.\135\ When looking only at U.S.
anthropogenic sources, CARB concluded that ammonium nitrate was
generally the dominant visibility reducing PM species, comprising an
average of 49 percent of light extinction at Class I areas in
California during 2014-2018.\136\ CARB also noted that, in prospective
light extinction budgets developed for 2028, ammonium nitrate comprises
an average of 38 percent of light extinction at Class I areas in
California. Based on these considerations, CARB chose to focus its
long-term strategy solely on NO<INF>X</INF>, which is considered the
limiting precursor for ammonium nitrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, pp. 69-70.
\136\ Id. at 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we support CARB's focus on impacts from U.S. anthropogenic
emissions, we find that its determination to focus its regional haze
control strategy exclusively on NO<INF>X</INF> during this planning
period is not adequately supported. The conclusion that NO<INF>X</INF>
is the dominant visibility reducing PM species is not true for all of
California's Class I areas, even when considering only U.S.
anthropogenic sources. For example, prospective U.S. light extinction
budgets for the most impaired days in 2028 indicate that at TRIN1
(representing Marble Mountain Wilderness and Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel
Wilderness Area), BLIS1 (representing Desolation Wilderness Area and
Mokelumne Wilderness Area), and JOSH1 (representing Joshua Tree
National Park), the contribution from U.S. anthropogenic sources from
organic mass will exceed the contribution from ammonium nitrate on the
most impaired days.\137\ And, even for the monitors where ammonium
nitrate is projected to have the largest contribution in 2028,
contributions from other species, such as organic matter and ammonium
sulfate, may be significant as well. For example, in the prospective
U.S. anthropogenic light extinction budgets for the most impaired days
in 2028, the contribution from organic matter exceeds 20% of total
impairment at nine monitors, and the contribution from ammonium sulfate
exceeds 20% at one monitor.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, p. 73, Figure 5-5.
\138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, CARB has not adequately considered whether
anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants from
[[Page 103751]]
California may contribute significantly to visibility impairment at
out-of-state Class I areas.\139\ For example, ammonium sulfate
constitutes a greater share of the total extinction budget than
ammonium nitrate at all of the Class I areas in neighboring
states.\140\ In addition, modeling results available from the WRAP TSS
\141\ how that for ammonium sulfate from anthropogenic SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, California industrial point sources (nonEGUs) have the
largest contribution to impairment of any state/source category
combination for three Class I areas in other States: Zion, Bryce
Canyon, and Grand Canyon National Parks. Further, the California nonEGU
contribution is comparable to that from Arizona nonEGUs for the
Mazatzal, Sierra Ancha, and Sycamore Wilderness Areas in Arizona, and
comparable to the EGU contribution at Capitol Reef National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\140\ 2022 California Regional Haze Plan, pp. 65-67.
\141\ WRAP Technical Support System, Modeling Express Tools,
``WRAP State Source Group Contributions--U.S. Anthro'', <a href="http://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/Express/ModelingTools.aspx">http://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2/Express/ModelingTools.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, it is not clear that ammonium nitrate is the
dominant species resulting from U.S. anthropogenic emissions at all
Class I areas affected by emissions from California and therefore, we
determine that it was unreasonable for CARB not to conduct any
evaluation of potential controls for the other pollutants.
2. Source Selection
In the Plan, CARB states that its source selection goal for this
regional haze plan was to consider sources that accounted for at least
50 percent of the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the inventory,
considering both 2014 and 2017 emissions inventories. Noting the
significant role of mobile source emissions in California and the
State's authority to establish emissions standards for certain mobile
sources, CARB chose to focus its source-selection process on mobile
sources, but also considered stationary sources.
a. Mobile Sources
CARB provided a summary of 2017 and projected 2028 NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions in tons per day (tpd) from various mobile source sectors in
table 5-1 of the Plan, which is reproduced as table 4 of this document.
Based on these data, CARB selected light and medium-duty vehicles,
heavy-duty trucks, off-road equipment, trains, and ocean-going vessels
for four-factor analysis, explaining that emissions from these five
source groups account for 60 percent of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the
2017 inventory and are projected to account for 50 percent of
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 2028.\142\ CARB also noted that it did not
select aircraft for analysis because Federal action would be needed to
address this source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Id. at 75-76.
Table 4--CARB Mobile Source Sector Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Emissions Projected 2028
Sector description (tpd) emissions (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road: Heavy-Duty Trucks.......... 409 227
On-Road: Light & Medium-Duty Trucks. 111 31
On-Road: Light-Duty Passenger....... 70 26
On-Road: Other (Buses, Motorcycles, 29 18
Motorhomes)........................
Off-Road: Off-Road Equipment........ 222 132
Off-Road: Trains.................... 78 37
Off-Road: Aircraft.................. 46 59
Off-Road: Ocean-Going Vessels....... 28 37
Off-Road: Commercial Harbor Craft... 19 18
Off-Road: Recreational Boats........ 16 13
Off-Road: Recreational Vehicles..... 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from mobile sources
specifically, we find that CARB selected a reasonable set of source
categories for four-factor analysis. However, as discussed in section
IV.E.3.a of this document, we find that CARB did not adequately analyze
and consider the four factors in relation to these source categories.
b. Stationary Sources
CARB conducted a four-step process to select sources for four-
factor analysis:
<bullet> Step 1: Calculate NO<INF>X</INF> emissions (Q) in tons
divided by distance (d) in km (Q/d) and screen in facilities with a
NO<INF>X</INF> Q/d greater than five for further consideration.
<bullet> Step 2: Review device level emissions inventories and
screen out sources if actual emissions or emissions under State or
local jurisdiction resulted in a Q/d less than five.
<bullet> Step 3: Review existing controls, planned controls, and
proposed operational changes. Screen out sources if this information
indicated that a full four factor analysis would likely result in the
conclusion that reasonable controls are in place.
<bullet> Step 4: Proceed with consideration and evaluation of four
statutory factors.
We evaluate steps 1-3 of CARB's analysis in this section and step 4
in section IV.E.3.b of this document.
In step 1 of its stationary source screening process, CARB
calculated NO<INF>X</INF>-only Q/d values using 2017 NEI NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions data and the distance between a stationary source and Class I
areas and selected the sources with a Q/d value greater than 5. The
results of this analysis are summarized in table G-1 of the Plan, which
is reproduced as Table 5 of this document.
Table 5--Stationary Sources Selected at Step 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance 2017 NEI
Facility name Location with maximum Q/d (km) (tpy) Q/d
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Products Company.................. Point Reyes National Seashore 28 737 26.4
Lehigh Southwest Cement Company........... Point Reyes National Seashore 86 1208 14.0
Oakland Metropolitan International Airport Point Reyes National Seashore 50 1262 25.4
[[Page 103752]]
Phillips 66 Carbon Plant.................. Point Reyes National Seashore 43 360 8.5
Phillips 66 Company--San Francisco Point Reyes National Seashore 43 218 5.1
Refinery.
San Francisco International Airport....... Point Reyes National Seashore 45 5105 113.4
San Jose Airport--Norman Y Mineta......... Point Reyes National Seashore 92 884 9.6
Shell Martinez Refinery (now owned by PBF) Point Reyes National Seashore 53 916 17.2
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company Llc... Point Reyes National Seashore 57 360 6.3
Valero Refining Company................... Point Reyes National Seashore 52 1013 19.3
CalPortland Cement--Mojave Plant.......... Domeland Wilderness Area..... 75 1531 20.5
Granite Construction--Lee Vining.......... Ansel Adams Wilderness Area.. 6 31 5.2
Kirkwood Powerhouse....................... Mokelumne Wilderness Area.... 1 10 16.6
Cal Portland Oro Grande (formerly Cucamonga Wilderness Area.... 41 1141 27.9
Riverside).
Cemex--Black Mountain Quarry.............. San Gorgonio Wilderness Area. 53 5420 101.6
Mitsubishi Cement......................... San Gorgonio Wilderness Area. 33 1944 59.7
Searles Valley Mineral.................... Domeland Wilderness Area..... 71 1517 21.3
Arcata.................................... Redwood National Park........ 17 163 9.7
Collins Pine Co........................... Caribou Wilderness Area...... 12 129 10.4
Sierra Pacific Industries--Quincy......... Caribou Wilderness Area...... 59 392 6.6
Sacramento International Airport.......... Desolation Wilderness Area... 117 737 6.3
San Diego International-Lindberg.......... Agua Tibia Wilderness Area... 74 1580 21.3
Burney Forest Products.................... Thousand Lakes Wilderness 17 190 11.2
Area.
Lehigh Southwest Cement Company........... Thousand Lakes Wilderness 56 603 10.7
Area.
Sierra Pacific Industries--Burney......... Thousand Lakes Wilderness 18 157 8.9
Area.
Wheelabrator Shasta E.C.I................. Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel 57 536 9.4
Wilderness Area.
Bob Hope Airport.......................... San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 31 375 12.0
California Steel Industries Inc........... Cucamonga Wilderness Area.... 16 125 7.8
Chevron Products Co....................... San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 52 729 14.0
Desert View Power......................... Joshua Tree National Park.... 24 189 7.8
John Wayne Airport........................ Cucamonga Wilderness Area.... 62 698 11.3
Long Beach Daugherty Field Airport........ San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 49 308 6.3
Los Angeles International Airport......... San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 49 7836 159.0
New-Indy Ontario, Llc..................... Cucamonga Wilderness Area.... 18 137 7.5
Ontario International Airport............. Cucamonga Wilderness Area.... 17 679 40.2
Palm Springs International Airport........ San Jacinto Wilderness Area.. 10 159 16.4
Phillips 66 Co/La Refinery Wilmington Pl.. San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 58 471 8.1
Phillips 66 Company/Los Angeles Refinery.. San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 53 391 7.3
Tamco..................................... Cucamonga Wilderness Area.... 13 108 8.3
Tesoro Refining & Marketing (Carson)...... San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 51 661 13.0
Tesoro Refining and Marketing (Wilmington) San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 54 749 13.8
Torrance Refining (formerly Exxon Mobil).. San Gabriel Wilderness Area.. 52 924 17.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from point sources
specifically, we find that CARB's use of a Q/d threshold of 5 resulted
in the selection of a reasonable set of sources. However, the Plan only
included the emissions data and distance values for the sources that
were selected. Therefore, it was not possible for the EPA or the public
to verify the emissions and distance values for sources that were not
selected.
In Step 2 of its Stationary Source Screening process, CARB screened
out 17 sources based on a ``device-level inventory,'' where ``actual
emissions or emissions under State or local jurisdiction led to a Q/d
less than five.'' \143\ The sources screened out at this stage are
summarized in table 6 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Id. appendix G, p. 154.
Table 6--Stationary Sources Screened Out at Step 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility name Rationale for screening out
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oakland Metropolitan Vast majority of emissions are from
International Airport. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
San Francisco International Vast majority of emissions are from
Airport. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
San Jose Airport--Norman Y Vast majority of emissions are from
Mineta. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Tesoro Refining & Marketing The refinery has been idled since 2020
Company Llc. and owner is proposing to convert the
refinery to a renewable fuels facility.
Granite Construction--Lee Per district staff, actual NOX emissions
Vining. from this source in 2017 were 0.5 tpy
and were consistent with emissions from
a typical operating year.
Kirkwood Powerhouse.......... In 2014, Kirkwood Meadows Public
Utilities District transitioned to line
power and all the generators were
transitioned from prime to emergency
back-up engines. Actual NOX emissions
since 2014 have been less than 0.1 tpy.
[[Page 103753]]
Arcata....................... Vast majority of emissions are from
aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Sacramento International Vast majority of emissions are from
Airport. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
San Diego International- Vast majority of emissions are from
Lindberg. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Bob Hope Airport............. Vast majority of emissions are from
aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Desert View Power............ Facility is located on Cabazon Indian
Reservation land.
John Wayne Airport........... Vast majority of emissions are from
aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits
Long Beach Daugherty Field Vast majority of emissions are from
Airport. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Los Angeles International Vast majority of emissions are from
Airport. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Ontario International Airport Vast majority of emissions are from
aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Palm Springs International Vast majority of emissions are from
Airport. aircraft, for which state and local
agencies do not have authority to set
emissions limits.
Tamco........................ Facility was permanently shut down in
January 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with step 1, we find that CARB's determinations at step 2 were
not adequately documented. In particular, CARB did not include in the
Plan the device-level emissions inventory that it used to screen out
sources. Thus, while we find that it was reasonable for the State to
focus on emissions under State and/or local jurisdiction and to
therefore screen out 12 airports and one source on tribal land, for the
other screened-out sources, additional documentation is needed to
verify the basis upon which the sources were screened out.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii); Clarifications Memo, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Step 3 of its screening process, CARB screened out 24 stationary
sources based on its determination that ``information about existing
controls, planned controls, or planned operational changes indicated
that a full four factor analysis would likely result in the conclusion
that, for the purposes of the regional haze program, reasonable
controls are in place and no further reasonable controls are necessary
at this time.'' \145\ The controls or measures cited by CARB in making
this determination for the 24 sources include existing or anticipated
controls required by currently applicable district rules, expected
district rules, permit requirements, and/or consent decrees. The
sources screened out at this step are shown in table 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Id. at 154.
Table 7--Stationary Sources Screened Out at Step 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility name Rationale for screening out
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chevron Products Company..... Multiple furnaces have selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) units and
permit limits of 40 ppm NOX at 3% O2 (8-
hour average). Cogeneration turbines
have SCR units and emission limits of
<10 ppm at 15% O2 (3-hour average) and
0.20 lb NOX per million British thermal
units (MMBtu) as a 30-day rolling
average. Facility's operating permit
includes the federal interim refinery-
wide emissions limit (excluding CO
boilers) of 0.20 lb NOX/MMBtu as well as
the more stringent refinery-wide
emissions limit (excluding CO boilers)
of 0.033 lb NOX/MMBtu.
Lehigh Southwest Cement Emission limit of 2.0 lb NOX/ton of
Company. clinker under federal consent decree.
Phillips 66 Carbon Plant..... Planned decommissioning of the plant.
Phillips 66 San Francisco Planned conversion to facility that would
Refinery. process renewable feedstocks.
Shell Martinez Refinery...... Turbine boiler is equipped with an SCR
system and has NOX emissions limits of
less than or equal to 5 ppmv NOX at 15%
O2. A 2001 EPA consent decree required
optimization of NOX emissions controls
for other boilers. Boilers are also
subject to Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation
9, Rule 10 which has been determined to
meet Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology (BARCT) stringency.
Valero Refining Company...... NOX emissions are controlled through SCR
systems and low NOX burners. BAAQMD
Regulation 9, Rule 10 applies to heaters
and boilers (except for CO boilers) at
refineries and sets the refinery-wide
NOX emissions limit at 0.033 lb NOX/
MMBtu of heat input (daily average) and
facility-wide federal limit of 0.20 lb
NOX/MMBtu of heat input.
Cal Portland Mojave Plant.... EPA consent decree required installation
of selective non-catalytic reduction
(SNCR) and established an emissions
limit of 2.5 lb NOX/ton of clinker for
kiln. Eastern Kern APCD Rule 425.3 found
to be meet BARCT stringency.
Cemex--Black Mountain Quarry. Federal consent decree established a NOX
emission limit of 1.95 lb/ton of
clinker. The kilns are also subject to
Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1161--Portland
Cement Kilns, which was revised in 2018
to meet federal RACT stringency and
California BARCT stringency.
Mitsubishi Cement The NOX emissions limit for cement kiln
(Cushenberry Plant). in the Title V permit is 2.8 lb/ton of
clinker.
Cal Portland Oro Grande...... The NOX emissions limit for cement kiln
is 2.45 lb/ton of clinker.
[[Page 103754]]
Searles Valley Mineral....... The smallest boiler complies with a best
available control technology (BACT)
emissions limit of 9 ppmv. All the
boilers are subject to Rule 1157.1,
which was adopted in 2019 to meet the AB
617 expedited BARCT requirements.
Sierra Pacific Industries-- NOX emissions are controlled by ammonia
Quincy. injection.
Burney Forest Products....... The boilers are equipped with an SNCR
unit with anhydrous ammonia injection
for NOX control. Title V permit includes
BACT emissions limits for NOX.
Lehigh Southwest Cement EPA Consent Decree limits NOX emissions
Company. to 1.95 lb/ton clinker with combustion
controls or SNCR.
Sierra Pacific Industries-- NOX emissions are controlled through
Burney. ammonia injection, staged combustion
controls, flue gas recirculation, and
low NOX burners when combusting natural
gas at start-up/shutdown.
Wheelabrator Shasta E.C.I.... NOX emissions are controlled through
ammonia injection, staged combustion
controls, flue gas recirculation, and
low NOX burners when combusting natural
gas at start-up/shutdown.
California Steel Industries.. By January 2022, the facility is planning
to replace two existing 33 MMBtu/hr
boilers with two new 32.54 MMBtu/hr
boilers to comply with a 5 ppm NOX limit
in South Coast AQMD Rule 1146.
Chevron Products Co.......... NOX control equipment includes low NOx
burners in heaters/boilers, SCR units,
and NOX reducing catalyst in the fluid
catalytic cracking unit (FCCU).
Recently, the facility replaced five
heater burners with low NOX burners and
the district recently received a
proposal from the facility to install
SCR on two large heaters. South Coast
AQMD Rule 1109.1 is being developed for
all NOX emitting sources at the
refineries.
New Indy Ontario LLC......... New combined heat and power units placed
in operation in the fall of 2019 with
BACT limit of 2 ppm NOX at 15% O2.
Boiler required to meet a 5 ppm NOX and
5 ppm NH3 at 3% O2 under South Coast
AQMD Rule 1146.
Phillips 66 Co/Los Angeles In the last six years, equipment changes
Refinery--Carson. have included the installation of an SCR
unit on boiler 11 and the reformer
heater. South Coast AQMD Rule 1109.1 is
being developed for all NOX emitting
sources at the refineries.
Phillips 66 Co/LA Refinery SCR was recently installed on the FCCU.
Wilmington. Boilers and heaters are equipped with
low NOX burners. South Coast AQMD Rule
1109.1 is being developed for all NOX
emitting sources at the refineries.
Tesoro Refining and Marketing FCCU shutdown at Wilmington completed in
Co.--Carson and Wilmington. October 2018. South Coast AQMD Rule
1109.1 is being developed for all NOX
emitting sources at the refineries.
Torrance Refining (formerly NOX control equipment at the refinery
ExxonMobil). includes low NOX burners in heaters/
boilers, SCR units, and NOX reducing
catalyst in the FCCU. South Coast AQMD
Rule 1109.1 is being developed for all
NOX emitting sources at the refineries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find that step 3 of CARB's source selection process was flawed
in several respects. First, as with steps 1 and 2, step 3 of CARB's
source selection process was inadequately documented. In particular,
the Plan did not include unit-specific emissions and control
information for all of the sources that were screened out. In response
to a request from NPS, CARB did post a device-level emissions inventory
on its website.\146\ However, this inventory provided only total annual
2017 NOX emissions and did not include information about existing
controls or emissions limitations. Without this information, it is not
possible to evaluate whether all the units with significant NOX
emissions are effectively controlled. Moreover, the device-level
inventory was not included in the SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ <a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/california-state-implementation-plans/statewide-efforts/regional-haze">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/california-state-implementation-plans/statewide-efforts/regional-haze</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, for those units where emissions limits were provided, CARB
did not adequately explain why it was reasonable to assume, without
conducting a four-factor analysis, that no additional controls or more
stringent emissions limitations would be reasonable. In particular, for
most of the screened-out sources, CARB cited existing or expected
determinations of best available retrofit control technology (BARCT)
under California state law and/or determinations of reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for purposes of Federal ozone
requirements and/or determinations as part of the basis for screening
sources out. However, while the 2019 Guidance lists more stringent
controls requirements, such as BACT and lowest achievable emissions
rate (LAER) determinations issued since 2013, as examples of effective
controls,\147\ it does not list RACT determinations as examples an
effective control. RACT is a less stringent requirement than either
BACT or LAER.\148\ In addition, some elements of BARCT and RACT
analyses differ from Regional Haze four-factor analyses and different
cost effectiveness thresholds may apply for purposes of BARCT and RACT
as compared with regional haze. For example, Eastern Kern APCD Rule
425.3 and Mojave Desert AQMD Rule 1161 establish NO<INF>X</INF>
emissions limits for RACT and BARCT that correspond to the use of
combustion controls, which are generally less stringent than post-
combustion controls, such as SNCR. The Staff Reports for these two
rules indicate that the cost effectiveness of more stringent limits,
such as limits corresponding to the use of SNCR, would range from
approximately $1,700/ton to $4,100/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed.\149\
These $/ton figures are within the range of what has been considered
cost-effective for regional haze reasonable progress measures by many
western states, including California's neighboring states of
[[Page 103755]]
Arizona,\150\ Nevada,\151\ and Oregon.\152\ Accordingly, it was not
reasonable for CARB to assume that RACT and/or BARCT controls
necessarily constitute effective controls for purposes of regional haze
in all cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 2019 Guidance, p. 23.
\148\ See, e.g., Memorandum dated May 18, 2006 from William T.
Harnett Director, Air Quality Policy Division, EPA, to Regional Air
Division Directors, Subject: ``Questions Related to RACT in 8-hour
ozone implementation,'' answer A.1 (``BACT requires that new or
modified sources adopt the best available controls and, as such, the
analysis is a `top-down' analysis that first looks at the most
stringent level of control available for a source. . . . RACT
requires that sources adopt controls that are reasonably available
and thus they may not be the most stringent controls that have been
adopted for other similar sources.'')
\149\ Eastern Kern APCD, ``Final Staff Report, Rule 425.3,''
March 8, 2018, p. D-2; Mojave Desert AQMD ``Staff Report, Amendments
to Rule 1161'', January 22, 2018, appendix F.
\150\ 89 FR 47398, 47415 (May 31, 2024).
\151\ Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second Planning
Period at 5-6 (August 2022), available at <a href="https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/air-plan_mod-docs/All_SIP_Chapters.pdf">https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/air-plan_mod-docs/All_SIP_Chapters.pdf</a> (``NDEP is relying on
a cost-effectiveness ($/ton reduced) threshold of $10,000.'')
\152\ 89 FR 13622, 13638 (February 23, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, under these circumstances, CARB should have evaluated such
controls on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it is reasonable
to assume that a full four-factor analysis would likely result in the
conclusion that no further controls are necessary.\153\ CARB did not do
so in the Plan. For example, for the Mitsubishi Cement Cushenbury
Plant, the Cal Portland Mojave Plant, and the Cal Portland Oro Grande
Cement Plant, CARB cited NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits of 2.8 lb/ton
of clinker, 2.5 lb/ton of clinker, and 2.45 lb/ton of clinker,
respectively.\154\ These limits are significantly higher than the
applicable limits at other cement kilns, such as National Cement Lebec
Unit 042, which has a limit of 1.5 lb/ton of clinker (30-day) in its
Title V Permit.\155\ The Mitsubishi Cement kiln does not have SNCR
installed.\156\ Given that many other cement kilns have installed SNCR
as a retrofit NO<INF>X</INF> control,\157\ we find that CARB did not
adequately justify why a four-factor analysis would likely result in a
determination that an emissions limit corresponding to SNCR is not
necessary to make reasonable progress at this unit. The two kilns at
Cal Portland Oro Grande Cement Plant have SNCR installed for ``optional
use,'' \158\ and the kiln at the Cal Portland Mojave Plant has SNCR
installed under a Consent Decree.\159\ However, other cement kilns in
California with SNCR are subject to significantly more stringent
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits than the limits at these three
kilns.\160\ Accordingly, we find that CARB did not adequately justify
why four-factor analyses would likely result in a determination that no
more stringent limits are necessary to make reasonable progress at
these units. Similar considerations apply to other units that CARB
screened out because they had installed controls constituting RACT and/
or BARCT. Therefore, we find it was not reasonable for CARB to screen
out units merely because they had installed controls constituting RACT
and/or BARCT without further consideration of the stringency of these
controls on a unit-specific basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ 2019 Guidance pp. 22-23.
\154\ Averaging times for these emissions limits were not
provided.
\155\ Permit 1128-V-2000 (Issued on 5/1/2024); Operational
Condition 14.
\156\ Permit 11800001 (Issued on 6/18/20), Condition II.A.33.
\157\ See, e.g., EPA, Control Cost Manual, section 4, Chapter 1,
Selective Noncatalytic Reduction, p. 1-5 (``SNCR was designated as
BART for 11 cement kilns'').
\158\ Permit 223900003 (Issued on 1/8/2021); (Significant Permit
Modification on 6/23/2021).
\159\ United States of America. v. CalPortland Company, E.D.
Cal. Case 1:11-at-00790, Document 2-1, filed 12/15/11.
\160\ See table 7 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, in some instances, CARB relied on rules that had not yet
been adopted at the time of its analysis. For example, for the
refineries in South Coast, CARB stated that ``Rule 1109.1 is being
developed for all NO<INF>X</INF> emitting sources at the refineries.''
\161\ We find it was not reasonable for CARB to screen out sources
based on the expected future applicability of rules that have not yet
been adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Plan appendix G, p. 180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, for each source that was screened out based on existing
effective measures, CARB should have determined whether those measures
are necessary for reasonable progress. As noted in section III.C of
this document and further explained in the Clarifications Memo,
generally a source/category's existing measures are needed to prevent
future emissions increases and are thus needed to make reasonable
progress.\162\ If CARB concludes that the existing controls at a
particular source are necessary to make reasonable progress, CARB must
adopt emissions limits based on those controls as part of its long-term
strategy for the second planning period and include those limits in its
SIP (to the extent they do not already exist in the SIP).\163\
Alternatively, if CARB can demonstrate that the source/category will
continue to implement its existing measures and will not increase its
emissions rate, it may be reasonable for the State to conclude that the
existing controls are not necessary to make reasonable progress. In
this instance, the emissions limits may not need to be adopted into the
long-term strategy and SIP.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ Clarifications Memo, pp. 8-10.
\163\ CAA 169A(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2).
\164\ 2019 Guidance p.43; Clarifications Memo, pp.8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, due to a lack of documentation for steps 1-3 and inadequate
justification for its determinations under step 3, we find that CARB's
source selection process for stationary sources did not adequately
address the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) to provide a
description of the criteria used to select sources, or the requirement
of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii) to provide documentation of the technical
basis used to determine emission reduction measures.
3. Four-Factor Analyses and Control Determinations
a. Mobile Sources
For each of the selected mobile source categories, CARB discussed
control measures that had been identified in previous state plans and
provided information related to the four reasonable progress factors in
order ``to highlight the consideration of the four reasonable progress
factors embodied in CARB's rule making process.'' \165\ CARB stated
that, based on this information, it identified four control options as
necessary to make reasonable progress: the Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation, the Heavy-Duty I/M Program Regulation, the Advanced Clean
Trucks Regulation, and the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Plan, appendix H, p. 185. See also Plan pp. 83-105 and
appendix H.
\166\ Id. at 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We commend CARB's ambitious on-going program of mobile source
emissions control measures, which has been developed to meet
California's air quality, climate, and community health goals.\167\
However, we find that, while CARB presented information about the four
factors in relation to on-the-books/on-the-way mobile source
requirements, CARB did not describe if or how it weighed the statutory
factors to determine which controls are necessary for reasonable
progress. For example, while most states have primarily considered the
cost effectiveness of controls in determining which controls are
necessary to make reasonable progress, CARB did not provide cost-
effectiveness values for most of the control measures it
considered,\168\ nor did it indicate what level of cost effectiveness
it considers to be reasonable. In the absence of such analysis and
explanation, we propose find that CARB's consideration of mobile source
control measures does
[[Page 103756]]
not meet the requirement of 40 CFR 52.308(2)(f)(i) to include a
description of ``how the four factors were taken into consideration in
selecting the measures for inclusion'' in the LTS or the requirement of
40 CFR 52.308(2)(f)(iii) to provide documentation of the technical
basis used to determine emission reduction measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ See, e.g., id. at 82 (``Integrated planning efforts
focused on reducing emissions and improving air quality to meet
California's air quality, climate, and community health goals will
yield meaningful progress in reducing visibility impairing PM.'')
\168\ For the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation, CARB estimated a
total cost effectiveness of $38,788/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> in 2022-
2032, and for the Heavy-Duty I/M program, CARB estimated the cost-
effectiveness to be $31,677/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> in 2024, $5,209/
ton of NO<INF>X</INF> in 2031, and $4,428/ton of NO<INF>X</INF> in
2037. CARB did not provide cost-effectiveness values for the other
measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Stationary Sources
CARB provided a four-factor analysis for a single unit: a Keeler
Cogeneration Boiler at the Collins Pine Company wood products and
cogeneration facility in Chester. As part of this analysis, CARB
considered several potential control options, but concluded that the
only technically feasible options were (1) good combustion practices,
which are already in effect, and (2) SNCR. After evaluating the four
factors for the SNCR option, CARB determined that retrofit of the
existing boiler system with an SNCR system was not reasonable because
``[t]he existing boiler configuration does not provide for adequate
residence time without injection of excess reagent, which is likely to
lead to high levels of ammonia slip.'' \169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ Plan, p. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB found that the use of good combustion practices is necessary
to ensure control of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the boiler at
Collins Pine. CARB stated that good combustion practices are already in
place at the facility and are enforceable as they are a condition of
the facility's Title V operating permit. However, CARB did not provide
a demonstration that use of good combustion practices was not necessary
to make reasonable progress. Therefore, as explained in section III.C
of this document, CARB should have submitted this measure for SIP
approval.
4. Conclusions
For the reasons described in the preceding sections, we propose to
find that CARB failed to reasonably ``evaluate and determine the
emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress'' by considering the four statutory factors as required by 40
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) and CAA section 169A(g)(1). We also propose to find
that CARB failed to adequately document the technical basis that it
relied upon to determine these emissions reduction measures, as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii).
In addition, 51.308(f)(2) requires the long-term strategy to
``include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as
determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv).'' As described in the
preceding sections, with the exception of the four mobile-source
measures that CARB deemed to be necessary for reasonable progress, CARB
did not clearly identify which measures it has determined were
necessary to make reasonable progress. Accordingly, CARB failed to
submit to the EPA a long-term strategy that includes ``the enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that
are necessary to make reasonable progress'' as required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ See also CAA 169A(b)(2), 169(b)(2)(B) (the CAA requires
that each implementation plan for a State in which the emissions
from may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area ``contain such emission
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting the national
goal, . . . including . . . a long-term . . . strategy for making
reasonable progress[.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the EPA proposes to find that the 2022 California
Regional Haze Plan does not satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f)(2).
F. Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(3) contains the requirements pertaining to RPGs
for each Class I area. Because California is host to multiple Class I
areas, it is subject to both section 51.308(f)(3)(i) and, potentially,
to (ii). Section 51.308(f)(3)(i) requires a state in which a Class I
area is located to establish RPGs--one each for the most impaired and
clearest days for each Class I area--reflecting the visibility
conditions that will be achieved at the end of the implementation
period as a result of the emissions limitations, compliance schedules,
and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) to be in states'
long-term strategies, as well as implementation of other CAA
requirements. The long-term strategies as reflected by the RPGs must
provide for an improvement in visibility on the most impaired days
relative to the baseline period and ensure no degradation on the
clearest days relative to the baseline period. Section 51.308(f)(3)(ii)
applies in circumstances in which a Class I area's RPG for the most
impaired days represents a slower rate of visibility improvement than
the URP calculated under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi). Under section
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A), if the state in which a mandatory Class I area is
located establishes an RPG for the most impaired days that provides for
a slower rate of visibility improvement than the URP, the state must
demonstrate that there are no additional emissions reduction measures
for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in the state that would
be reasonable to include in its long-term strategy. Section
51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B) requires that if a state contains sources that are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area in another state, and the RPG for the most impaired days
in that Class I area is above the URP, the upwind state must provide
the same demonstration.
CARB's RPGs are set out in table 8-1 of the Plan, which is
reproduced as table 8 of this document. In the Plan, CARB explains that
the RPGs for the most impaired days are based on the emissions inputs
that include implementation of control programs adopted at the time of
the emissions inventory development and the additional aggregate
emissions reduction commitment proposed in CARB's long-term
strategy,\171\ while the RPGs for the clearest days are equal to
average visibility conditions on the clearest days during the 2000-2004
baseline period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ The last column of Plan table 7-5, p.131 is headed ``2028
Visibility Projections (dv) with Potential Additional Controls (PAC2
Emissions).'' While it is not explicitly stated in the Plan, that
was the WRAP model scenario mainly relied upon in the Plan. Unless
otherwise indicated, all of the Plan's 2028 projections and RPGs are
identical to results from WRAP modeling scenario PAC2_EPAwoF ``PAC2
EPA w/o Fire Projection,'' available in WRAP TSS modeling tools 4
and 5. The PAC2 scenario reflected ``Potential Additional
Controls,'' including California mobile source control measures; the
``woF'' means ``without fire'' in the calculation of Relative
Response Factors to apply to monitored or other modeled
concentrations.
[[Page 103757]]
Table 8--Baseline Conditions and RPGs for Clearest and Most Impaired Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Most
Clearest Clearest impaired impaired
IMPROVE site Class I area baseline 2028 RPG baseline 2028 RPG
(dv) (dv) (dv) (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABE1................................. Lava Beds National 3.2 3.2 11.3 8.9
Monument.
South Warner Wilderness
Area.
REDW1................................. Redwood National Park... 6.1 6.1 13.7 11.9
TRIN1................................. Marble Mountain 3.4 3.4 11.9 9.5
Wilderness Area.
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel
Wilderness Area.
LAVO1................................. Thousand Lakes 2.7 2.7 11.5 9.4
Wilderness Area.
Lassen Volcanic National
Park.
Caribou Wilderness Area.
BLIS1................................. Desolation Wilderness 2.5 2.5 10.1 8.3
Area.
Mokelumne Wilderness
Area.
PORE1................................. Point Reyes National 10.5 10.5 19.4 14.4
Seashore.
YOSE1................................. Emigrant Wilderness Area 3.4 3.4 13.5 10.4
Yosemite National Park..
HOOV1................................. Hoover Wilderness Area.. 1.4 1.4 8.9 7.1
KAIS1................................. Ansel Adams Wilderness 2.3 2.3 12.9 9.8
Area.
John Muir Wilderness
Area.
Kaiser Wilderness Area..
PINN1................................. Pinnacles National Park. 8.9 8.9 17.0 13.0
Ventana Wilderness Area.
SEQU1................................. Kings Canyon National 8.8 8.8 23.2 16.1
Park.
Sequoia National Park...
RAFA1................................. San Rafael Wilderness 6.5 6.5 17.3 13.0
Area.
DOME1................................. Domeland Wilderness Area 5.1 5.1 17.2 13.7
SAGA1................................. San Gabriel Wilderness 4.8 4.8 17.9 11.5
Area.
Cucamonga Wilderness
Area.
SAGO1................................. San Gorgonio Wilderness 5.4 5.4 20.4 12.0
Area.
San Jacinto Wilderness
Area.
JOSH1................................. Joshua Tree Wilderness 6.1 6.1 17.7 11.3
Area.
AGTI.................................. Agua Tibia Wilderness 9.6 9.6 21.6 14.5
Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2022 California Regional Haze Plan Table 8-1: 2028 Reasonable Progress Goals for California Class I
Areas.
In Plan appendix C, CARB also provided graphs of observed
visibility, unadjusted and adjusted URP, and 2028 RPGs.\172\ From those
CARB concluded that 2028 RPGs for all of California's Class I areas are
on or below the adjusted URP glidepath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Those graphs have the unadjusted and adjusted URP
glidepath lines crossing each other, instead of both starting at the
2004 baseline level and having just the 2064 end point adjusted.
However, comparable graphs available from WRAP TSS modeling tool 5
show the same placement of 2028 RPG with respected to the unadjusted
and adjusted URP glidepath line as the Plan appendix C graphs do.
All Class I areas are below the unadjusted URP glidepath, except
that those corresponding to IMPROVE sites REDW1, LAVO1, BLIS1, DOME1
are above the unadjusted URP glidepath but below the glidepath
adjusted for international sources and the glidepath adjusted for
internationals sources and prescribed fire.
Table 9--Current Rate of Progress and URP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current rate
IMPROVE site Class I area of progress Unadjusted URP Adjusted URP
(dv/year) (dv/year) (dv/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LABE1................................ Lava Beds National 0.11 0.09 0.07
Monument.
South Warner Wilderness
Area.
REDW1................................ Redwood National Park.. 0.08 0.09 0.07
TRIN1................................ Marble Mountain 0.11 0.09 0.05
Wilderness Area.
Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel
Wilderness Area.
LAVO1................................ Thousand Lakes 0.09 0.09 0.06
Wilderness Area.
Lassen Volcanic
National Park.
Caribou Wilderness Area
BLIS1................................ Desolation Wilderness 0.06 0.09 0.06
Area.
Mokelumne Wilderness
Area.
PORE1................................ Point Reyes National 0.29 0.16 0.14
Seashore.
YOSE1................................ Emigrant Wilderness 0.14 0.12 0.08
Area.
Yosemite National Park.
HOOV1................................ Hoover Wilderness Area. 0.08 0.07 0.03
KAIS1................................ Ansel Adams Wilderness 0.14 0.11 0.06
Area.
John Muir Wilderness
Area.
Kaiser Wilderness Area.
PINN1................................ Pinnacles National Park 0.21 0.11 0.13
Ventana Wilderness Area
[[Page 103758]]
SEQU1................................ Kings Canyon National 0.34 0.28 0.21
Park.
Sequoia National Park..
RAFA1................................ San Rafael Wilderness 0.23 0.18 0.14
Area.
DOME1................................ Domeland Wilderness 0.15 0.18 0.13
Area.
SAGA1................................ San Gabriel Wilderness 0.34 0.20 0.17
Area.
Cucamonga Wilderness
Area.
SAGO1................................ San Gorgonio Wilderness 0.43 0.24 0.20
Area.
San Jacinto Wilderness
Area.
JOSH1................................ Joshua Tree National 0.34 0.19 0.15
Park.
AGTI1................................ Agua Tibia Wilderness 0.38 0.23 0.18
Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2022 California Regional Haze Plan Tables 8-3, 8-4, and 8-5.
As noted above, we find that CARB's long-term strategy does not
meet the requirements of section 51.308(f)(2). Section 51.308(f)(3)(i)
specifies that RPGs must reflect ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures required under paragraph
(f)(2) of this section.'' In the absence of an approved long-term
strategy, we cannot approve the associated RPGs. In addition, CARB's
RPGs for the clearest days are merely identical to baseline conditions,
rather than estimated via a modeling-based analysis of the conditions
that will be achieved at the end of the implementation period. We find
that CARB's approach is inconsistent with the requirement
51.308(f)(3)(i) for RPGs to ``reflect the visibility conditions that
are projected to be achieved by the end of the applicable
implementation period . . .'' Finally, we also note that CARB does not
appear to have considered whether sources in California are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area in
another state, whose RPG for the most impaired days in that Class I
area is above the URP, as required under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(ii)(B).
Based on these findings, we propose to determine that CARB has not
satisfied the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3) relating
to RPGs and to disapprove Chapter 8 of the Plan.
G. Additional Monitoring To Assess Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment
Requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4) for additional monitoring to
assess reasonably attributable visibility impairment are not applicable
to California. The EPA and FLMs have not previously advised California
that additional monitoring is needed to assess reasonably attributable
visibility impairment. Therefore, the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(f)(4) are not applicable to California at this time.
H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(f)(6) specifies that each comprehensive revision of
a state's regional haze plan must contain or provide for certain
elements, including monitoring strategies, emissions inventories, and
any reporting, recordkeeping and other measures needed to assess and
report on visibility. A main requirement of this subsection is for
states with Class I areas to submit monitoring strategies for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting on visibility impairment.
Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in
the IMPROVE network. In Chapter 2 of the Plan, CARB noted that it
relies on data from 17 monitoring sites operated by the IMPROVE network
to track visibility conditions in California's Class I areas.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(i) requires SIPs to provide for the
establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether RPGs to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state are being achieved. CARB stated that
this requirement is ``not applicable,'' suggesting that CARB believes
the current IMPROVE network is sufficient for this purpose.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(ii) requires SIPs to provide for procedures by
which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within
and outside the state. CARB relied on source-apportionment modeling
performed by the WRAP to meet this requirement.\173\ Specifically, CARB
pointed to both high-level source apportionment modeling, which was
used to estimate how much of each haze pollutant was attributable to
several broad source categories, and low-level source apportionment
modeling, which was used to estimate how much ammonium nitrate and
ammonium sulfate is attributable to regional human-made sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Plan Chapter 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(f)(6)(iii) does not apply to California, as it has a
Class I area. Section 51.308(f)(6)(iv) requires the SIP to provide for
the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in the state. As noted above, CARB
relies on data from 17 monitoring sites operated by the IMPROVE
Network.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(v) requires the SIP to provide for a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment, including emissions for
the most recent year for which data are available and estimates of
future projected emissions. It also requires a commitment to update the
inventory periodically. California provides for emissions inventories
and estimates of future projected emissions by participating in WRAP
and by complying with the EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). In
40 CFR part 51, subpart A, the AERR requires states to submit updated
emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to the EPA's Emissions
Inventory System (EIS) annually or triennially depending on the source
type. The EPA uses the inventory data from the EIS to develop the NEI,
which is a comprehensive estimate of air emissions of criteria
pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous air pollutants from air
emissions sources. The EPA releases an NEI every three years. In
Chapter 3 and appendix E of the Plan, CARB provides high-level
summaries of 2014 and 2028 emissions inventories. The EPA proposes to
find that CARB meets the requirements of 40 CFR
[[Page 103759]]
51.308(f)(6)(v) through its ongoing compliance with the AERR, its
compilation of a statewide emissions inventories, and its use of WRAP
modeling.
Section 51.308(f)(6)(vi) requires the SIP to include other
elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures,
necessary to assess and report on visibility. The EPA proposes to find
that CARB has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6) as described
above, including through its continued participation in the IMPROVE
network and the WRAP, and that no further elements are necessary at
this time for CARB to assess and report on visibility pursuant to 40
CFR 51.308(f)(6)(vi).
I. Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the
Reasonable Progress Goals
Section 51.308(f)(5) requires that periodic comprehensive revisions
of states' regional haze plans also address the progress report
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) through (5). The purpose of these
requirements is to evaluate progress towards the applicable RPGs for
each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within that state.
Sections 51.308(g)(1) and (2) apply to all states and require a
description of the status of implementation of all measures included in
a state's first implementation period regional haze plan and a summary
of the emission reductions achieved through implementation of those
measures. Section 51.308(g)(3) applies only to states with Class I
areas within their borders and requires such states to assess current
visibility conditions, changes in visibility relative to baseline
(2000-2004) visibility conditions, and changes in visibility conditions
relative to the period addressed in the first implementation period
progress report. Section 51.308(g)(4) applies to all states and
requires an analysis tracking changes in emissions of pollutants
contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and sectors
since the period addressed by the first implementation period progress
report. This provision further specifies the year or years through
which the analysis must extend depending on the type of source and the
platform through which its emissions information is reported. Finally,
section 51.308(g)(5), which also applies to all states, requires an
assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within
or outside the state have occurred since the period addressed by the
first implementation period progress report, including whether such
changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded
expected progress towards reducing emissions and improving visibility.
CARB's most recent 5-year progress report was submitted to the EPA
on June 16, 2014 and presented data analysis for the period 2007-
2011.\174\ Therefore, the current progress report is required to
address the time period beginning in 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ 79 FR 58302, 58304 (September 29, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) in Chapter 10
of the Plan and provided additional supporting information in a
technical supplement submitted on August 24, 2023 (``2023 California
Regional Haze Technical Supplement'').\175\ Specifically, to address
51.308(g)(1) and (2), CARB provided a summary of control measures it
adopted between 2012 and 2018, and statewide emissions trends through
2018.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Letter dated August 23, 2023, from Michael Benjamin,
Division Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, to
Matthew Lakin, Acting Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 9
(submitted electronically August 24, 2023).
\176\ Plan table 10-1 and Figure 10-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that the Plan meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(1) and (2) because it describes the measures included in
the long-term strategy from the first implementation period, as well as
the status of their implementation and the emissions reductions
achieved through such implementation.
The Plan also provides the 5-year baseline (2000-2004) visibility
conditions, the conditions covered in the previous progress report
(2007-2011) and current conditions (2014-2018) for the clearest and
most impaired days.\177\ The EPA therefore proposes to find that the
Plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ Id. Tables 10-4 and 10-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2023 California Regional Haze Technical Supplement, CARB
provided additional supporting information to address the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) and (5). Pursuant to section 51.308(g)(4), CARB
provided a summary of emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>,
PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and NH<INF>3</INF> from all
sources and activities, including from point, nonpoint, non-road
mobile, and on-road mobile sources for the progress report period. CARB
also provided 2012-2019 clean air markets program data for all sources
with emissions of visibility impairing pollutants. The EPA is therefore
proposing to find that the Plan satisfies the requirements of section
51.308(g)(4) by providing emissions information for NO<INF>X</INF>,
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>10</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, VOCs, and
NH<INF>3</INF> broken down by type of sources and activities within the
state.
Pursuant to section 51.308(g)(5), CARB provided an assessment of
any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside
the state that have occurred since the period addressed in the most
recent plan, including whether or not these changes in anthropogenic
emissions were anticipated in that most recent plan, and whether they
have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and
improving visibility. CARB noted overall average emissions reductions
of 36 percent for NO<INF>X</INF>, 45 percent for SO<INF>2</INF>, 20
percent for ROG, and 28 percent for PM<INF>2.5</INF> between the 2007-
2011 period and the 2014-2018 period. The EPA proposes to find the Plan
meets the requirements of section 51.308(g)(5).
J. Requirements for State and Federal Land Manager Coordination
CAA section 169A(d) requires states to consult with FLMs before
holding the public hearing on a proposed regional haze SIP, and to
include a summary of the FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in the
notice to the public. In addition, the FLM consultation provision in
section 51.308(i)(2) requires a state to provide FLMs with an
opportunity for consultation that is early enough in the state's policy
analyses of its emissions reduction obligation so that information and
recommendations provided by the FLMs can meaningfully inform the
state's decisions on its long-term strategy. If the consultation has
taken place at least 120 days before a public hearing or public comment
period, the opportunity for consultation will be deemed early enough.
Regardless, the opportunity for consultation must be provided at least
sixty days before a public hearing or public comment period at the
state level. Section 51.308(i)(2) also provides two substantive topics
on which FLMs must be provided an opportunity to discuss with states:
assessment of visibility impairment in any Class I area and
recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Section 51.308(i)(3) requires states, in
developing their implementation plans, to include a description of how
they addressed FLM comments. Section 51.308(i)(4) requires regional
haze plans to provide procedures for continuing consultation between
the State and FLMs on the implementation of the regional haze program,
including development and review of SIP revisions and progress reports,
and on
[[Page 103760]]
the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute
to impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
In Chapter 9 of the Plan, CARB indicates that it held multiple
informal consultation teleconferences with staff from the NPS and the
USFS during development of its plan.\178\ CARB sent a draft of the Plan
to the NPS, FWS, and the USFS on February 9, 2022. CARB requested that
FLM agencies provide formal comments on the draft by April 11, 2022.
The comments received from Federal land managers and CARB's responses
to these comments are provided in appendix I of the Plan. Chapter 9
also includes a discussion of CARB's procedures for continuing
consultation with stakeholders, including FLMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Plan, p. 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While CARB did take administrative steps to provide the FLMs the
requisite opportunity to review and provide feedback on the state's
initial draft plan, the EPA cannot approve the requirements under
51.308(f)(i) because CARB's consultation was based on a SIP revision
that did not meet the required statutory and regulatory requirements of
the CAA and the RHR, respectively. In addition, if the EPA finalizes
the partial approval and partial disapproval of the Plan, as proposed
in this document, in the process of correcting the deficiencies
outlined above with respect to the RHR and statutory requirements, the
State (or the EPA in the case of an eventual FIP) will be required to
again satisfy the FLM consultation requirement under 51.308(i).
V. Proposed Action
For the reasons discussed in this notice, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially
disapprove the 2022 California Regional Haze Plan. The EPA is proposing
to approve the elements of the Plan related to requirements contained
in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4)-(6), and 40 CFR 51.308
(g)(1)-(5). The EPA is proposing to disapprove the elements of the Plan
related to requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2), 40 CFR
51.308(f)(3), and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2)-(4).
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA or is
required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as
described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a sanctions clock.
The 2022 California Regional Haze Plan was not submitted to meet any of
these requirements. Therefore, if finalized, these disapprovals would
not trigger any offset or highway sanctions clocks. Disapproving a SIP
submission also establishes a two-year deadline for the EPA to
promulgate a FIP to address the relevant requirements under CAA section
110(c), unless the EPA approves a subsequent SIP submission that meets
these requirements.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.\179\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to review state choices, and approve those choices if they meet
the minimum criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking
proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to
partially approve and partially disapprove state law as meeting Federal
requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
[[Page 103761]]
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on
and supplements E.O. 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, ``the
just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of
income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or
disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that
affect human health and the environment.''
The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, if finalized, this action is expected to
have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and
there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal
of E.O. 12898/14096 of achieving environmental justice for communities
with EJ concerns.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 10, 2024.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2024-29595 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 19, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.