august 10, 2016 - the council of state governments | … circuit court of appeals stayed ......

State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 101 S. Webster Street Box 7921 Madison Wl53707-7921

August 10, 2016

Ms. Gina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Attention: Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary

Telephone 608-266-2621 Toll Free 1-888-936-7463

TTY Access via relay - 711

Subject: Comments on EPA's Proposed Amendments to Requirements for State Plans for the Protection ofVisibility (Regional Haze Proposed Rule), Docket ID EPA-HQ-2015-0531

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

The Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR) submits the following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed Amendments to Requirements for State Plans for the Protection of Visibility (regional haze proposed rule) as published in 81 Fed. Reg. 26942 (May 4, 2016). WDNR previously provided input to EPA on potential changes to the regional haze program on March 27 and November 3, 2015.1•2

On June 30,2016, EPA proposed new guidance implementing the regional haze proposed rule. While the comments made in the attached document address the proposed rule, they take into the account the proposed guidance because the guidance provides important information about how EPA intends to implement the changes proposed in this rule. WDNR will be providing comments on the regional haze guidance in a separate document, in accordance with that due date.

Recent litigation activity supports several of the concerns raised in these comments. On July 15, 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed implementation ofEPA's January 2016 regional haze federal implementation plan (FIP) for Texas and Oklahoma.3 In granting the stay, the court noted that EPA argued in its FIP that its rejection of the Texas and Oklahoma reasonable progress goals (RPGs) and long-term strategies relied on "novel interpretations" of the regional haze rule and that "the novel interpretation will guide other states designing future SIPs".4•5 Despite this, EPA claims this proposed rule reflects its "long-

1 WDNR Comments on the Future of the Regional Haze Program. Submitted via e-mail on March 27,2015 to Phil Lorang, EPA-OAQPS. 2 WDNR Comments on Development of Regional Haze Guidance for the Second Planning Period. Submitted via e-mail on November 3, 2015 to Phil Lorang, EPA-OAQPS. 3 State ofTexas, eta!. v. EPA, et al, No. 16-60118 (5th Cir. July 15, 2016). 4 State ofTexas, et al. v. EPA, et al, No. 16-60118, at *21 (5th Cir. July 15, 2016). The Court indicated that EPA further argued that because the Final Rule disapproves SIPs from states in two different circuits, it has nationwide scope or effect. [emphasis added] 5 EPA references the FIP for Texas and Oklahoma in support of its proposed haze rule revisions (see 81 FR 26952, footnote 23): "The EPA's interpretation of the proper relationship between a state's reasonable progress goals and its long-term strategy is explained in detail in our proposed action on SIPs from Texas and Oklahoma. See section IV.C at 79 FR 74828. This interpretation was reaffrrmed in our fmal action on these SIPs. See section II.C at 81 FR 308 (January 5, 2016)."

dnr.wi.gov wisconsin.gov Naturally WISCONSIN

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

standing" interpretation of the proper relationship between a state's reasonable progress goals and its longterm strategy requirement.6 As described in the attached comments, EPA's new interpretation ofthis relationship imposes stricter requirements on states while minimizing the importance of visibility impact considerations.

The stay by the court of appeals reflects WDNR's concern that EPA is proposing changes to both the regional haze rule and guidance that go beyond the historical interpretations of the rule and the requirements of the Clean Air Act to achieve certain visibility improvements. In addition, when making changes to the rule and guidance, EPA must also provide the necessary basis and legal justification within the proposals themselves, and should not rely on a FIP action to provide such justification. Finally, any revisions to the regional haze program that affect stringency of haze requirements must be proposed in rule, rather than guidance.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. Please contact David Bizot at (608) 267-7543 or [email protected] if you have any questions concerning these comments.

Sincerely,

Environmental Management Division

cc: Bart Sponseller - AM/7 Gail Good - AM/7 David Bizot - AM/7 Jonathan Loftus- AM/7

Attachment

6 EPA's proposed haze rule (81 FR 26952): "The EPA's proposed revisions to 51.308(f) are consistent with the EPA's longstanding interpretation [footnote 23] of the existing regulations at§ 51.308(d), but are organized in a more logical fashion." [emphasis added]

Attachment to "Wisconsin Comments on Proposed Amendments to Requirements for State Plans for the Protection ofVisibility (Regional Haze Proposed Rule), Docket ID EPA-HQ-2015-0531", August 10,2016

Wisconsin Comments on Proposed Amendments to Requirements for State Plans for the Protection of Visibility (Regional Haze Proposed Rule)

EPA's current regional haze rule requires that each state contributing to visibility impairment of a designated Class I area submit a state implementation plan (SIP) for each 1 0-year period to achieve natural visibility background conditions by 2064. The SIP identifies the uniform rate of progress (URP) in visibility improvement that must be achieved each year to attain this goal. The state also identifies for each 1 0-year SIP a reasonable progress goal (RPG) towards attaining the URP for that period. The RPGs themselves are not enforceable, but states must submit SIPs that identify the measures and control programs that will be implemented to achieve each RPG. These actions are enforceable and are documented as part of the state's long -term strategy (L TS) towards meeting the RPG. Under the current rule, the SIP addressing reasonable progress for the second period (20 19 through 2028) is due July 31, 2018. The SIP for the third planning period will be due on July 31, 2028, with future periodic comprehensive SIP revisions due every ten years thereafter. A total of five SIPs are due through 2064.

WDNR provides the following comments on EPA's proposed changes to the rule.

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEADLINES

1. The deadline for the next 10-year SIP should be moved from 2018 to 2021.

EPA is proposing to move the compliance deadline for the submission of the second periodic SIP from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021 to allow states to coordinate regional haze planning with other regulatory programs. The SIP for the third planning period will be due on July 31, 2028, with .future SIPs due every ten years thereafter.

EPA should finalize moving the compliance deadline for the second period SIP from July 2018 to July 2021. Wisconsin commented to EPA in March 2015 that the extension is appropriate, and reiterates that comment here. 1 This extension would help states use a multi-pollutant approach that integrates air quality planning processes between the regional haze rule and other regulations such as upcoming National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) requirements, and thus use state resources more efficiently? In addition, extending the SIP deadline to July 2021 is necessary for Wisconsin to conduct the necessary modeling, complete the required consultations with federal land managers (FLMs ), and undertake a rulemaking process for any rules needed to achieve reasonable progress.

1 See WDNR's March 27, 2015 comments (comment 1). 2 Certain regulatory programs referenced in EPA's rationale for this extension are currently subject to legal challenge, in particular the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP is beyond the authority of the EPA under the Clean Air Act and is currently being litigated by several states, including Wisconsin. As the CPP has been stayed by the Supreme Court, it is inappropriate to use the CPP to justify other EPA actions.

1

Attachment to "Wisconsin Comments on Proposed Amendments to Requirements for State Plans for the Protection ofVisibility (Regional Haze Proposed Rule), Docket ID EPA-HQ-2015-0531", August 10, 2016

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS, THE UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS, AND LONG-TERM STRATEGIES

EPA is proposing a default approvable methodology (see comments 5 through 8) for a state to follow in determining its RPG which relies primarily on a cost and feasibility analysis (the four-factor analysis) and does not allow for visibility goals as a primary consideration in the final determination of the RPG. This changes the historical relationship between RPGs, the URP, and the long-term strategy.

2. The proposed haze rule must retain consideration of visibility and meeting the URP as the primary criteria when determining the RPG for each 10-year plan.

The current regional haze rule, promulgated in 1999, established that visibility is the primary consideration in setting each state's RPG for each 10-year planning period. The required visibility improvement was represented by the uniform rate of progress (URP), established by the state to determine the rate of progress needed to achieve natural background conditions. When determining a RPG, EPA describes four steps (64 FR 35732), each step building on the previous step:

1. Determine the total amount of progress needed to reduce visibility impacts from baseline conditions to natural background conditions by 2064 (a 60-year period);

2. Determine the URP for each year in deciviews (total progress required divided by 60 years); 3. Determine the amount of progress in deciviews for the applicable 10-year period (URP

multiplied by ten years), and lastly 4. "Identify and analyze the emission measures that would be needed to achieve this amount of

progress during the period and determine whether those measures are reasonable based on the statutory factors" (the four factors).

These steps clearly establish that a RPG is to be determined based on the amount of visibility improvement needed to meet the URP. In its 2007 guidance to the current haze rule, EPA reiterated that reaching the URP is the state's primary objective.3'4 A four-factor analysis is only applied as a last step to ensure that the measures necessary to reach the URP are reasonable. 5 If the four factor analysis shows that measures are not reasonable, then the state can set a RPG that does not meet the URP.

When revising the haze rule, EPA must ensure that visibility and meeting the URP are the state's only obligations when determining a RPG subject to the four factors. In the rule and guidance proposals, EPA is clearly applying a new, default approach to setting RPG which minimizes the

3 U.S. EPA, 2007. Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, section 2.3. 4 EPA indicates in its proposed guidance (81 FR 44608) that the 2007 guidance will no longer apply after the new guidance is finalized (see section 1.2 of the proposed guidance). EPA should not revoke the 2007 guidance without explaining its reasoning for why different aspects of the 2007 guidance no longer apply (namely, the "specific percent reduction to reach the URP" discussion in section 2.3 of the 2007 guidance). 5 The four-factors include analysis of cost, energy and non-air quality impacts, the time necessary for compliance, and the remaining useful life of the affected source. These four factors are established in the Clean Air Act and are also referred to as the statutory factors.

2


visibility consideration. EPA's proposed changes also ignore the primary goal for the four-factor analysis of ensuring that the RPG is reasonable. Comments 3 through 8 identify specific areas of the proposed rule that must be modified in order to maintain or clarify this relationship.

3. A state must not be required to set a RPG more stringent than the URP which applies for that period.

EPA's proposal is a significant change in direction from the current rule and would result in states potentially being required to set a RPG far beyond what is needed to meet visibility objectives. WDNR provided input to EPA in March 2015 and November 2015 that if states are on or below the URP due to existing and on-the-books control measures applicable for the 1 0-year period, then there should be no further requirement for evaluating measures and sources resulting in a more stringent RPG.6•7 WDNR reiterates those comments here.

As stated in comment 2, the current primary regulatory consideration when setting a RPG is if the URP is met. Requiring reductions beyond the URP negates the purpose of the URP and the long-term intent of the rule to reduce visibility impacts gradually through 2064.

There is no requirement in the current rule to establish any RPG more stringent than the URP. There are only requirements to use a four-factor analysis to establish that more control is not reasonable in the case that a state is determining a RPG short of the URP. 8 Under the current rule, the only time that an RPG would necessarily exceed the URP would be as the result of implementing other, nonregional haze requirements ofthe CAA applicable during thatperiod.9

EPA has indicated that states must "consider" emission reductions (below the RPG) if the state's initial assessment shows reasonable measures are available.10 However, the scope of any potential additional reduction is still driven by the need to meet the URP, as described in comment 2. Further, the preamble to the current rule indicates that meeting the URP is already ambitious, and that setting a RPG beyond the URP is at the state's discretion.U EPA never required states to set a RPG more stringent than necessary to meet the URP, except in the narrow circumstances described above.

EPA's proposed rule is contrary to the current approach. In its proposal, EPA's default method would have the states apply the four-factor analysis to a larger population of sources without consideration of visibility with respect to the URP line, which is counter to both past practice and the intent of the

6 See WDNR's March 27,2015 comments (comment 3). 7 See WDNR's November 3, 2015 comments (comment 1). 8 40 CFR 51.308(1 )(i)(A) and (B) 9 40 CFR 51.308(1)(i)(A) and (B) (v) 10 See 64 FR 35732 ("If the State determines that the amount of progress identified through the analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory factors, the State should adopt that amount of progress as its goal..."). The "analysis" is referring to the analysis performed based on the steps described in comment 2 with the four-factors applied as the last step. 11 See 64 FR 35731 ("States have the flexibility in determining their reasonable progress goals based on consideration of the statutory factors ... the final rule requires States to conduct certain analyses to ensure that they consider the possibility of setting an ambitious reasonable progress goal, one that is aimed at reaching natural background conditions in 60 years") (emphasis added).

3


rule. EPA should finalize the revised haze rule to clarify that setting a RPG more stringent than the URP is not required, except for when it is the result of other CAA requirements applicable in the 10-year period. This would be congruent with EPA's implementation of the current haze rule as described in comment 2.

4. EPA should not reorder the rule requirements as proposed. Instead, EPA should maintain the determination of a RPG as. an action separate from the development of the long-term strategy.

The RPG requirement and the criteria for determining RPGs are a stand-alone requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). EPA is proposing to make the reasonable progress determination a subrequirement of the long-term strategy (LTS) requirement. The LTS currently documents the regulatory programs that the state is adopting or relying on to meet the chosen RPG, among other distinct requirements, and is currently promulgated under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). EPA is proposing to merge the reasonable progress determination as part of the LTS provision for all future 1 0-year implementation plans under a new provision 40 CFR 51.308(/). EPA claims that this proposed reordering of rule requirements does not create any new requirements for states.

EPA describes placing the reasonable progress goal determination under the L TS as simply reordering the requirements into a more logical fashion that reflects current requirements and procedures. Despite EPA's assertions, this proposal alters the function of the rule in significant ways.

The current rule provides, as a discrete step, that each state will determine RPGs. The straightforward introduction to the RPG provision under 40 CFR 51.308(1) establishes visibility as the primary context for determining RPG. However, this context of visibility as the primary consideration is removed in EPA's proposal to make the RPG calculation a part ofthe LTS provision. WDNR does not support this removal.

The current rule also clearly lists the criteria and methods a state is to apply when determining a RPG (see comment 2); these steps occur independent of strategy development. However, under EPA's proposed reordering (and considering also EPA's proposed guidance), what was once a clearly defined step is proposed to be just one part of an array of steps and considerations a state must make to determine the L TS, including screening sources (according to the proposed guidance) and applying the four-factor analysis to evaluate control measures. The resulting RPG, as proposed, is an outcome of calculation based on prescribed steps and assumptions reflecting a combination of the proposed default screening method and four-factor analysis, not a separate determination by the state to set a goal based on visibility impacts and the subsequent application ofthe four factors. EPA's proposed reordering changes this relationship significantly and is not supported by WDNR, as it removes state discretion to achieve the required visibility improvement in the most efficient and costeffective way.

4

Attachment to "Wisconsin Comments on Proposed Amendments to Requirements for State Plans for the Protection of Visibility (Regional Haze Proposed Rule), Docket ID EPA-HQ-20 15-0531 ", August 10, 2016

Through its proposed reordering, EPA has also added and altered specific RPG requirements (e.g., states would have to apply measures adopted by other states regardless of visibility impact or conditions specific to the state)Y This also changes the rule's requirements on states.

EPA's proposed merger and reordering changes the nature of both the RPG and LTS requirements. These requirements work in parallel, but serve two different distinct functions: The RPG is determined in context of visibility while the LTS establishes the strategy and enforceable requirements for meeting the RPG. EPA should therefore not finalize its proposed restructuring.

METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS

EPA is proposing to clarify how RPGs are determined for each 1 0-year implementation plan. While a screening analysis of sources potentially subject to emissions controls is not being proposed as a rule requirement, EPA's recently proposed guidance (81 FR 44608) does present a methodology where the state would first screen sources, both as individual sources and in aggregate, based on default approvable criteria with a limited consideration of visibility impacts. The four-factor analysis is then applied to all sources identified in the screening step. The result of the four factor analysis constitutes the reasonable progress requirement for the state. If the RPG does not meet the URP, the state must perform a second analysis of sources; the proposed guidance provides further direction on this analysis which would include more stringent control options and an expanded pool of sources. EPA 's RPG determination methodology does allow an alternative where the four-factor analysis can consider the visibility impact of different control measures, but not as a primary factor.

Wisconsin is providing the following comments on the general RPG determination methodology. EPA should also refer to Wisconsin's comments on the proposed guidance for additional details on these topics.

5. Any default screening analysis should allow a state to prioritize evaluating the sources which have the most impact on visibility.

EPA's proposed screening process would force states to consider controlling large numbers of sources, while disregarding visibility impacts and the URP line, during each planning period (see comments 6 and 7). Wisconsin provided input to EPA in March and November 2015 that any screening method provided in the guidance should allow a state to prioritize evaluation of the sources determined to most impact visibility, followed by an evaluation of progressively less impactful sources if the URP is not met. 13'14 This would be similar to best available retrofit technology (BART) used under the first planning period, which provided a specific process for identifying eligible sources and evaluating controls (see comment 8).

12 See proposed haze rule at 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii) ("The state must consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility, the emission reductions measures identified in (f)(2)(i), and additional measures being adopted by other contributing states .... ) [emphasis added] 13 See WDNR's March 27,2015 comments (comment 4). 14 See WDNR's Nov. 3, 2015 comments (comment 3).

5


6. Any screening analysis should not prescribe evaluation of major and minor sources or area sources.

Each state should have the discretion to evaluate the sources it determines are contributing to visibility impairment and which are necessary to meet URP. EPA should not prescribe which sources the state must evaluate.

In order to assist the state in determining which sources to evaluate, EPA could provide information on the types of sources that EPA's analyses indicate could significantly contribute to visibility impairment based on various factors, including size, number, and distance from affected areas. EPA could evaluate the amount of emissions from different source categories to identify these candidate sources. The states can then use this information to aid them in identifying contributing sources, instead of EPA dictating the sources (due to the default screening analysis thresholds) that should be evaluated under the four-factor analysis.

Finally, there should be no requirement for states to address groups of related small sources. This eliminates a state's discretion to focus on the specific sources having the greatest impact on visibility in the most cost effective manner.

7. EPA should not set default screening thresholds (such as a requirement to assess sources constituting 80% of emissions or visibility impact) to determine the sources subject to the four-factor analysis.

EPA has no basis for establishing default screening thresholds, as they would force states to consider controlling large numbers of sources while disregarding both cost and visibility impacts. EPA's default approach would simply yield an emission reduction, based on a four-factor analysis, which would apply to 80% of sources or source emissions regardless of the impact on visibility. This is contrary to the intent and purpose of the rule, which is to achieve reasonable progress on a continuum over six, 1 0-year periods. Such thresholds also eliminate state discretion to achieve the required visibility improvements in the most cost-effective way. Also, as mentioned in comments 5 and 6, states should be allowed to prioritize evaluating the most impacting sources in meeting the URP.

8. EPA should not prescribe a second-round analysis of sources for states whose RPG is above the URP. EPA should allow for reasonable incremental cost and visibility impact considerations when evaluating different control options, but not require BACT.

EPA should remove proposed section 51.308(f)(3)(ii) requirements from the final rule. This section would require - for states whose RPG is above the URP after using the four-factor analysis criteria in 51.308(f)(2)(i)- to then demonstrate, based again on the four-factor analysis criteria in (f)(2)(i), that there are no additional emission reduction measures that would be reasonable to include in the longterm strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) already requires states to document "the criteria used to determine which sources or groups of sources were evaluated, and how these four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy." This required documentation is sufficient to ensure that requirements for the four-factor analysis have been met.

6

Attachment to "Wisconsin Comments on Proposed Amendments to Requirements for State Plans for the Protection of Visibility (Regional Haze Proposed Rule), Docket ID EPA -HQ-20 15-0531 ", August 10,2016

EPA's proposed guidance contains additional direction on performing the four-factor analysis. Although that guidance is separately open for public comment, there are a few important points to be made here because they strongly influence the interpretation of the proposed rule. First, the fourfactor analysis should allow for incremental cost and visibility considerations when evaluating different control options, as allowed under best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations in the first implementation period. Second, the four-factor analysis should not require the equivalent ofbest available control technologies (BACT), which are more appropriate for new sources, versus the existing sources evaluated when setting RPGs.

PROGRESS REPORT REQUIREMENTS

9. EPA should finalize its proposal that progress reports need not be incorporated into the SIP.

EPA proposes that regional haze progress reports need not be incorporated in the SIP. EPA further proposes to retain, in the existing rule, that when a RPG for that period is not being achieved, the state has an obligation to revise its SIP to address the plan's deficiencies within one year of its submission of such a determination.

EPA should finalize its proposal that progress reports need not be incorporated into the SIP. Wisconsin provided input to EPA in March 2015 that any requirement that progress reports be submitted as SIP revisions should be eliminated, and that progress reports should not require formal federal approval.15 Wisconsin reiterates those comments here. The 5-year progress reports identify trends in emissions, report on the status of implementation, and quantify visibility improvement compared to the RPGs identified in the comprehensive 1 0-year SIP for that purpose; as such, the progress reports are best considered as data submittals. The proposed rule will still require the progress reports to be reviewed by the FLMs, undergo public notice and comment, and be reviewed by EPA for completeness. This will ensure that the progress reports are sufficient to fulfill the rule's requirements. Finally, progress reports are not the appropriate vehicle to amend a state's LTS requirements or rules for meeting its RPG, because there is insufficient time for states to pursue meaningful amendments before planning begins for the next 10-year SIP submittal. For these reasons, progress reports should not be considered as a document that must be incorporated into the SIP.

In addition, EPA should remove from the rule the obligation for a state to revise its SIP to address the plan's deficiencies within one year of its submission of such a determination. If a progress report does not demonstrate progress consistent with the 10-year SIP, the state should be allowed to consult with EPA on the best way to address any deficiency. The presumption should be that the state can address any deficiencies in its next 10-year SIP, which is the only point in the process the state should need to consider new planning and potential rulemaking actions due to the necessary timing, rule development, and public process required. Through consultation with EPA, the state can determine if a deficiency should be addressed on a quicker timeframe.

15 See WDNR's March 27, 2015 comments (comment 2).

7


10. EPA should finalize the proposed changes in progress report due dates.

EPA proposes that second and subsequent progress reports be due by January 31, 2025, July 31, 2033, and every 10 years thereafter. This schedule places one progress report mid-way between the due dates for periodic comprehensive SIP revisions. EPA notes that this revised schedule would allow for enough time for state action to make changes in its rules or implementation efforts, if necessary, separately from the actions in the next SIP.

Delaying the due date of the second progress report to January 2025 is reasonable in light of the proposed July 2021 deadline for the next comprehensive 1 0-year SIP. However, as described in comment 9, progress reports are primarily informative and should not be used as the vehicle to amend RPG requirements or rules, because there is insufficient time for states to pursue meaningful amendments before planning begins for the next 1 0-year SIP submittal.

11. EPA should retain FLM consultation for progress reports even though they are not SIP revisions.

Under the existing rule, the FLM consultation requirements are applicable only to SIP revisions. EPA proposes a requirement that states must consult with FLMs when developing progress reports, due to another proposed rule change that progress reports would no longer be incorporated into the SIP.

EPA should finalize its proposal to require consultation with FLMs when developing non-SIP progress reports so that FLMs can identify any additional data needs or comparisons for determining RPGs relative to the URP line. However, as noted in comment 12, this consultative period should not exceed 60 days.

12. The length of the required FLM consultation period should remain 60 days.

EPA proposes to change the requirement for FLM consultation from at least 60 days prior to a public hearing to at least 120 days prior to a public hearing, in order for the consultation to occur sufficiently early in the state's planning process to meaningfully inform the state's development of the long-term strategy.

EPA should not change the current 60-day consultation requirement. In WDNR's experience, FLMs are already consulted on key issues early in the process when developing draft haze documents. This has provided adequate opportunities for FLMs to review documents and provide feedback to the state on a time line that is flexible to the needs of all parties. It is not necessary to expand the formal consultative period to 120 days.

8


OTHER PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

13. Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RA VI) provisions are historic requirements that should be removed from the rule.

Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RA VI) requirements currently only apply to states with Class I areas. The proposed rule amendments extend the RA VI requirements to states without Class I areas. Under the amendments, EPA notes that FLMs can certify that visibility impairment in a particular Class I area is due to a single source or small number of sources in any state. The state(s) with the contributing source(s) would then be responsible for submitting a SIP revision that provides for any controls necessary for reasonable progress.

EPA should remove the section 51.302 (RA VI) requirements altogether from 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P (Protection ofVisibility). The requirements of the regional haze rule are otherwise more than sufficient to address visibility impacts from anthropogenic sources that cause or contribute to visibility impairment. EPA acknowledges this in its proposal, noting that the RA VI provisions are rarely utilized for addressing visibility impairment.

If EPA does not remove the RA VI requirements, states require a far better understanding as to how EPA intends to implement any expanded requirement. Specifically, EPA must clarity the criteria to be used by FLMs for certifYing a source or sources as subject to the RA VI requirements (e.g., by assigning percent responsibility to a particular source or sources). States also must know how a source's responsibility to visibility impairment is to be determined. For example, EPA's BART Guidelines list a 1.0 deciview (dv) impact as the threshold for "causing" visibility impairment; sources at or above a 0.5 dv impact (or lower, at the state's discretion) "contribute" to visibility impairment. If EPA is suggesting that there are similar deciview thresholds under RA VI for "causing" and "contributing to" visibility impairment, this must be explicitly described in the final rule. However, under no circumstance should EPA require a source below 0.5 dv to be subject to RA VI. Finally, EPA's proposed definition ofthe term reasonably attributable ("attributable by visual observation or any other appropriate technique") is too broadly defined and would leave the criteria too open-ended for FLM certification.

14. EPA should give states flexibility to choose how to track visibility progress

EPA proposes to require states with Class I areas to track visibility progress using a method that is more closely linked with visibility impacts from controllable emissions, rather than the current method based on the days with highest deciview values due to impacts from all types of sources. EPA also solicits comment on an alternative proposal under which a state could choose between using the proposed approach and using the existing approach.

EPA should finalize its alternative proposal and allow states to choose between using either approach to tracking visibility. By allowing both approaches under the rule, EPA would allow each state the flexibility to choose the approach that makes the most sense for their situation.

9


15. EPA should allow states to consider the impacts on visibility from anthropogenic sources outside the U.S. and from prescribed wildland fires both inside and outside the U.S.

EPA is requesting comment on proposed provisions that would allow states with Class I areas significantly impacted by international anthropogenic emissions, as well as wildland prescribed fires within the US., to make an adjustment to the URP with specific approval by the Administrator. Under the existing rule, emissions from these sources might cause the projected RPG to be above the URP line, thus triggering the additional analytical requirement to show that there are no additional measures that are necessary for reasonable progress. EPA believes that international or US. impacts related to significant natural events (such as wildland wildfires) will be adequately addressed by the proposed changes regarding which days in a year are used for tracking progress (Section IVC of the proposed rule). EPA also proposes to give states the flexibility to provide and plan for the use of prescribed fire, with basic smoke management practices applied, to an extent and in a manner that states believe appropriate.

EPA's final rule should allow states to adjust their URP to account for the impacts of emission sources beyond the states' control. States with Class I areas, or states which contribute to states with Class I areas (like Wisconsin), should not have to evaluate additional measures if their RPGs are above the URP due to these types of uncontrollable sources. However, in addition to wildland fires inside the U.S. (prescribed or otherwise), states should also be allowed to consider wildland fires outside the U.S. (such as from Canada, which can have significant visibility impact on Class I areas in Michigan and Minnesota). States should also have the flexibility to provide and plan for the use of prescribed fire as the states believe appropriate, as EPA proposes. Ultimately, EPA's intention to address impacts beyond states' control (through changes in how progress is tracked) may not address all situations. Therefore, EPA should maintain all potential flexibilities in addressing these cases.

10

august 10, 2016 - the council of state governments | … circuit court of appeals stayed ......

Documents