[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27973-27985]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11839]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0289, FRL-9305-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Delaware; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Delaware State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Delaware through
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) on September 25, 2008 that addresses regional haze for the
first implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to
prevent any future, and remedy any existing, anthropogenic impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing to determine that the Regional Haze plan submitted by
Delaware satisfies the requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking this
action pursuant to those provisions of the CAA. EPA is also proposing
to approve this revision as meeting the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0289 by one of the following methods:
    A. http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0289, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0289. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you

consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, 89
Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Lewis,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 25, 2008, the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control submitted a
revision to its SIP to address Regional Haze for the first
implementation period.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Background Information
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Interstate Transport for Visibility
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. What is EPA's analysis of Delaware's regional haze submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    4. Reasonable Progress Goals
    5. BART
    C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
    D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA.

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter, which impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions (64 FR
35714, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Background Information

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of 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 \2\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (45 FR 80084). These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the

relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 69122,
November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule. The Regional Haze Rule
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the
regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in section II of this notice. The
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\3\ Section 51.308(b)
requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Mid-Atlantic Region Air Management Association (MARAMA), the
Northeast States for Coordination Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) regional planning organization. MANE-VU 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 Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor
of the United States. Member States and tribal governments include:
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, and
Vermont.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

    Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require that
within three years of promulgation of a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), a State must ensure that its SIP, among other
requirements, ``contains adequate provisions prohibiting any source or
other types of emission activity within the State from emitting any air
pollutant in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State to
protect visibility.'' Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that
such SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of part C of (Subchapter I)
(relating to visibility protection).''
    EPA's 2006 Guidance, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' recognized the possibility
that a state could potentially meet the visibility portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission of a Regional Haze SIP, as
required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. EPA's 2009 guidance,
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' recommended that a state could
meet such visibility requirements through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA's
rationale supporting this recommendation was that the development of
the regional haze SIPs was intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states, and that through this process states
would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an
interstate basis. The common understanding was that, as a result of
this collaborative environment, each state would take action to achieve
the emissions reductions relied upon by other states in their
reasonable progress demonstrations under the Regional Haze Rule. This
interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the Regional Haze
Rule that a state participating in a regional planning process must
include ``all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.'' 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
    The regional haze program, as reflected in the Regional Haze Rule,
recognizes the importance of addressing the long-range transport of
pollutants for visibility and encourages states to work together to
develop plans to address haze. The regulations explicitly require each
state to address its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to
meet the reasonable progress goals for neighboring Class I areas.
States working together through a regional planning process, are
required to address an agreed upon share of their contribution to
visibility impairment in the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these requirements, appropriate regional haze
SIPs will contain measures that will achieve these emissions reductions
and will meet the applicable visibility related requirements of section
110(a)(2).
    As a result of the regional planning efforts in the MANE-VU, all
states in the MANE-VU region contributed information to a Technical
Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the causes of haze,
and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to
the visibility degradation of each Class I area. The MANE-VU States
consulted in the development of reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their
reasonable progress goals for the MANE-VU Class I areas. The modeling
done by MANE-VU relied on assumptions regarding emissions over the
relevant planning period and embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions in each of the states in MANE-VU,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the State's long term strategy for addressing regional haze. The
reasonable progress goals in the regional haze SIPs that have been
prepared by

the states in the MANE-VU region are based, in part, on the emissions
reductions from nearby states that were agreed on through the MANE-VU
process.
    Delaware submitted a Regional Haze SIP on September 25, 2008, to
address the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. On December 13,
2007, Delaware submitted its original 1997 Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On September 16, 2009, Delaware submitted a
1997 Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submittal
amendment and an infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. On the September 16, 2009 submittal, Delaware indicated that its
Regional Haze SIP would meet the requirements of the CAA, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Delaware also
indicated it will meet the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), and
specifically references the Regional Haze SIP submitted on September.
EPA has reviewed Delaware's Regional Haze SIP and, as explained in
section IV of this action, proposes to find that Delaware's Regional
Haze submittal meets the portions of the requirements of the CAA
sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function.
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one
deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview (64 FR 35714, 35725, July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then-current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary
for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how
these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and
worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have considerable
flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted
in EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July
1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators,
EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also
consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or
the ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to
achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP.
Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year
2064 represents a rate of progress which states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve.
In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I
state'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing states,''
i.e., other nearby states with emission sources that may be affecting
visibility impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required,
to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other
types of sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4)). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005).
EPA's regulations provide that states participating in the CAIR cap and
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP
or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
in 40 CFR part 97, do not require affected BART eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX (40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)).
Since CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still
required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject
to BART for that pollutant.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance

schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions
from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
     Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
     Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.

III. What is EPA's analysis of Delaware's regional haze submittal?

    On September 25, 2008, the Delaware DNREC submitted revisions to
the Delaware SIP to address regional haze as required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    Delaware has no Class I areas within its borders, but has been
identified as influencing the visibility impairment of the Brigantine
National Wildlife Refuge

Class I area, located in the State of New Jersey. Delaware is
responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses this
Class I area, that describes its long-term emission strategy, its role
in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets the other
requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations. However, since
Delaware has no Class I areas within its borders, Delaware is not
required to address the following Regional Haze SIP elements: (a)
Calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, (b)
establishment of reasonable progress goals, (c) monitoring
requirements, and (d) RAVI requirements.

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in Section II.E of this action, the LTS is a
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state
to obtain its share of emission reductions to support the RPGs
established by New Jersey, the Class I area state. Delaware's LTS for
the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from
federal, State, and local controls that take effect in the State from
the baseline period starting in 2002 until 2018. Delaware participated
in the MANE-VU regional strategy development process. As a participant,
Delaware supported a regional approach towards deciding which control
measures to pursue for regional haze, which was based on technical
analyses documented in the following reports: (a) Contributions to
Regional Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States; (b)
Assessment of Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze in MANE-VU Class I
Areas; (c) Five-Factor Analysis of BART-Eligible Sources: Survey of
Options for Conducting BART Determinations; and (d) Assessment of
Control Technology Options for BART-Eligible Sources: Steam Electric
Boilers, Industrial Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and Pulp
Facilities.
    The LTS was developed by Delaware, in coordination with MANE-VU,
identifying the emissions units within Delaware that likely have the
largest impacts currently on visibility at the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, estimating emissions reductions for 2018,
based on all controls required under federal and State regulations for
the 2002-2018 period (including BART), and comparing projected
visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge Class I area.
    Delaware's LTS includes measures needed to achieve its share of
emissions reductions agreed upon through the consultation process with
New Jersey and includes enforceable emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals established by New Jersey for the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by MARAMA for MANE-VU with assistance from
Delaware. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002
emissions, and assuming emissions growth due to projected increases in
economic activity as well as applying reductions expected from federal
and State regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2. The BART guidelines direct States
to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH3 impair
visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in Section
III.B.3, below. MANE-VU demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of
sulfates are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass and
visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic region. It was also determined that the total ammonia
emissions in the MANE-VU region are extremely small. In addition, since
VOC emissions are aggressively controlled through the Delaware SIP, the
pollutants Delaware considered under BART are NOX,
PM10, PM2.5, and SO2.
    MANE-VU developed emissions inventories for four inventory source
classifications: (1) Stationary point sources, (2) area sources, (3)
off-road mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile sources. The New York
Department of Environmental Conservation also developed an inventory of
biogenic emissions for the entire MANE-VU region. Stationary point
sources are those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage
per year, depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the
facility level. Stationary area sources are those sources whose
individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the large number
of these sources, the collective emissions from the source category
could be significant. Off-road mobile sources are equipment that can
move but do not use the roadways. On-road mobile source emissions are
automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles that use the roadway system. The
emissions from these sources are estimated by vehicle type and road
type. Biogenic sources are natural sources like trees, crops, grasses,
and natural decay of plants. Stationary point sources emission data is
tracked at the facility level. For all other source types emissions are
summed on the county level.
    There are many federal and State control programs being implemented
that MANE-VU and Delaware anticipate will reduce emissions between the
baseline period and 2018. Emission reductions from these control
programs were projected to achieve substantial visibility improvement
by 2018 in the Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge. To assess emissions
reductions from ongoing air pollution control programs, BART, and
reasonable progress goals MANE-VU developed 2018 emissions projections
called Best and Final. The emissions inventory provided by the State of
Delaware for the Best and Final 2018 projections is based on adopted
and enforceable requirements.
    The ongoing air pollution control programs relied upon by Delaware
for the Best and Final projections include Delaware's Regulation 1144--
Control of Stationary Generator Emissions; Regulation 1146--Electric
Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation; Regulation 1148--Control of
Stationary Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions;
Regulation 1142, Section 1--Control of NOX Emissions from
Industrial Boilers; Regulation 1142, Section 2--Control of
NOX Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at
Petroleum Refineries; Regulation 1124, Section 46--Crude Oil Lightering
Operations; a Valero Refinery consent decree; the NOX SIP
Call; NOX and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in
the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone SIPs for Delaware; NOX OTC 2001
Model Rule for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers;
Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine standards for non-road trucks and
buses; Federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for the on-road vehicles;
Federal large spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and
EPA's non-road diesel rules. The estimated emissions reductions
resulting from Delaware's EGU Regulations 1144, 1146, and 1148 are 75%
for SO2 and 57% for NOX from 2002 base year.
    Delaware also relied on emission reductions from various federal
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules in the development
of the 2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT rules include
the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal combustion engines
MACT, the industrial boiler and process heaters MACT and the 2-, 4-, 7-
, and 10-year MACT standards.
    On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals mandated the
vacatur

and remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\6\ This MACT was vacated
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Definition
Rule. EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the
vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). Delaware's modeling included emission
reductions from the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule. Delaware did
not redo its modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. However,
the expected reductions in SO2 and PM are small relative to
the Delaware inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the expected reductions of
the new rule acceptable since the final rule requires compliance by
2014, it provides Delaware time to assure the required controls are in
place prior to the end of the first implementation period in 2018. In
addition, the RHR requires that any resulting differences between
emissions projections and actual emissions reductions that may occur
will be addressed during the five-year review prior to the next 2018
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 1 and 2 are summaries of the 2002 baseline and 2018
estimated emissions inventories for Delaware. The 2018 estimated
emissions include emission growth as well as emission reductions due to
ongoing emission control strategies, BART, and reasonable progress
goals.

                     Table 1--2002 Emission Inventory Summary for Delaware in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NOX       PM2.5       PM10       NH3        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................      4,755     16,345      3,666      4,217        196     73,744
Area..........................................     15,519      2,608      3,204     13,039     13,279      1,588
On-Road Mobile................................     10,564     21,341        415        581        903        584
Off-Road Mobile...............................      8,010     16,227        926      1,021          5      3,983
Biogenic......................................     46,343        990          0          0          0          0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................     85,191     57,511      8,211     18,858     14,383     79,899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 2--2018 Emission Summary for Delaware ``Best and Final'' in Tons per Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   VOC        NOX       PM2.5       PM10       NH3        SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................      2,104     16,587      3,692      4,437        210     16,707
Area..........................................     13,066      3,014      3,073     10,500     13,342        380
On-Road Mobile................................      5,037      5,917        191        202      1,328        128
Off-Road Mobile...............................      5,652     14,631        808        896          6      3,296
Biogenic......................................     46,343        990          0          0          0          0

    Total.....................................     72,202     41,139      7,764     16,035     14,886     20,511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for
Uniform Rate of Progress
    MANE-VU performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 11
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states and the District of Columbia. The
modeling analysis is a complex technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. MANE-VU used the following modeling
system:
     Meteorological Model: The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania
State University/National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic,
prognostic meteorological model routinely used for urban- and regional-
scale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory
modeling studies.
     Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system is an emissions modeling
system that generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of
mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emission
sources for photochemical grid models.
     Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/Community Multiscale
Air Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a photochemical grid model capable
of addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale.
     Air Quality Model: The Regional Model for Aerosols and
Deposition (REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid model that was
primarily used to determine the attribution of sulfate species in the
Eastern U.S. via the species-tagging scheme.
     Air Quality Model: The California Puff Model (CALPUFF),
version 5 is a non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model used to access
the contribution of individual states' emissions to sulfate levels at
selected Class I receptor sites.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the MANE-VU region for 2002 and
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer (km) cells that
covers the 11 MANE-VU states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont) and the District of Columbia and states adjacent
to them. This grid is nested within a larger national CMAQ modeling
grid of 36x36 km grid cells that covers the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection of a representative
period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating baseline air quality
conditions and projecting future changes in air quality due to changes
in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. MANE-VU conducted an
in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection of the entire year of
2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period of meteorology
available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The MANE-VU states modeling
was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, located at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-
454/B-07-002),

April 2007, and EPA document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for
Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations, located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001,
August 2005, updated November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    MANE-VU examined the model performance of the regional modeling for
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone,
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks
and databases for the 2002 base year. MANE-VU used a diverse set of
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once MANE-VU determined the
model performance to be acceptable, MANE-VU used the model to assess
the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), the State of Delaware
provided the appropriate supporting documentation for all required
analyses used to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and
modeling used to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are
consistent with EPA's RHR, and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance.
EPA accepts the MANE-VU technical modeling to support the LTS and
determine visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress
because the modeling system was chosen and used according to EPA
Modeling Guidance. EPA agrees with the MANE-VU model performance
procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for
the regional haze assessments for the Delaware LTS and regional haze
SIP.
3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to Visibility Impairment
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further
reducing emissions from different pollutants, MANE-VU developed
emission sensitivity model runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and
air quality impacts from various groups of emissions and pollutant
scenarios in the Class I areas on the 20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting
visibility in the MANE-VU region, MANE-VU's contribution assessment,
demonstrated that sulfate is the major contributor to PM2.5
mass and visibility impairment at Class I areas in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic Region. Sulfate particles commonly account for more than
50 percent of particle-related light extinction at northeastern Class I
areas on the clearest days and for as much as or more than 80 percent
on the haziest days. In particular, for the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, on the 20 percent worst visibility days
in 2000-2004, sulfate accounted for 66 percent of the particle
extinction. After sulfate, organic carbon (OC) consistently accounts
for the next largest fraction of light extinction. Organic carbon
accounted for 13 percent of light extinction on the 20 percent worst
visibility days for Brigantine, followed by nitrate that accounts for 9
percent of light extinction.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by MANE-VU predict
that reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU and non-EGU
industrial point sources will result in the greatest improvements in
visibility in the Class I areas in the MANE-VU region, more than any
other visibility-impairing pollutant. As a result of the dominant role
of sulfate in the formation of regional haze in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic Region, MANE-VU concluded that an effective emissions
management approach would rely heavily on broad-based regional
SO2 control efforts in the eastern United States.
4. Reasonable Progress Goals
    Since the State of Delaware does not have a Class I area, it is not
required to establish RPGs. However, Delaware has been identified as
influencing the visibility impairment of the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, located in the State of New Jersey. As
such, Delaware participated in consultations to discuss the reasonable
progress goals being considered by New Jersey for the affected Class I
area. As a result, the state of New Jersey adopted four RPGs that will
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility:
Timely implementation of BART requirements; a 90 percent reduction in
SO2 emissions from each of the EGU stacks identified by
MANE-VU comprising a total of 167 stacks (5 are located in Delaware);
adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil strategy; and continued evaluation of
other control measures to reduce SO2 and NOX
emissions.
    In order to address a timely implementation of BART, as described
in Section III B. 5. of this notice, Delaware's Regulation 1146--
Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation was determined to
be better than BART for NOX and SO2 emissions.
The first phase of the emission limits became effective in 2009 and
second phase will become effective in 2012. The BART limitation will
become effective no later than January 1, 2013, for the PM control
strategies identified in Section III.B.5.c.
    States were required to reduce SO2 emissions from the
highest emission stacks in the eastern U.S. by 90 percent or if it was
infeasible to achieve that level of reduction, an alternative had to be
identified which could include other point sources. Delaware's
Conective Edge Moor Unit 5 and NRG Indian River Units 1-4 are five of
the 167 units identified by MANE-VU as having the highest emissions in
the eastern United States. The 2002 base year SO2 emissions
from these five units are 22,121 tons per year. A 90% SO2
emission reduction of these five units would result in 19,909 tons per
year. However, the 2018 SO2 emission reductions that
resulted from the implementation of Regulation 1146 for these five
units is 16,662 tons per year. These reductions are not enough to
satisfy the 90% emission reduction from the 2002 baseline requirements.
However, Delaware considered all of the emission reductions from all
the other units obtained through the implementation of Regulation
1146--Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation and this
resulted in 23,826 tons per year, which produced a surplus of 3,917
tons per year of SO2 emission reductions.
    The low sulfur fuel oil strategy has four requirements for the
State of Delaware. These requirements are to reduce the distillate oil
to 0.05% sulfur by weight (500 parts per million (ppm)) no later than
2012, 4 residual oil to 0.25% sulfur by weight no later than
2012, 6 residual oil to 0.3-0.5% sulfur by weight no later
than 2012, and further reduce the sulfur content of distillate oil to
15 ppm by 2016. Table 3 shows the SO2 emission reductions
that would result from the implementation of a low sulfur fuel oil
strategy in Delaware compared to the

existing currently implemented regulations.

                         Table 3--Reasonable Progress Goal--Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2018 SO[ihel2]           2018 SO[ihel2]
                                                                 emissions  reductions     emissions  increase/
                 Low sulfur fuel oil strategy                    (TPY) based on the low   reduction (TPY) based
                                                                    sulfur fuel oil        on existing  control
                                                                    strategy request             measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual Fuel Oil (assumes 0.5% sulfur).......................                    1,445                    -1271
Distillate (15 ppm sulfur)....................................                    1,205                       95
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................                    2,650                   -1,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Table 3, Delaware has a deficiency of 1,176 tons per
year of SO2 emissions. However, as noted above Delaware has
a surplus of SO2 emission reductions of 3,917 tons per year
resulting from the implementation of Regulation 1146. This surplus
accounts for the SO2 emission reductions needed to meet the
requirements of the low sulfur fuel strategy.
    Delaware identified several measures that demonstrate their efforts
to continued evaluation of other control measure to reduce
SO2 and NOX. Delaware's Executive Order 31
requires their Energy Task Force to expand the diversity of fuels used
to meet Delaware's current and future energy resources, develop
conservation programs to reduce the need to build more electric
generation facilities, ensure that energy infrastructure will meet
Delaware's future needs for efficiently transporting energy resources,
and encourage producers of clean energy technologies and producers of
energy efficient products to locate their business operations in
Delaware.
5. BART
    BART is an element of Delaware's LTS. The BART RH requirement
consists of three components: (a) Identification of all the BART
eligible sources; (b) an assessment of whether the BART eligible
sources are subject to BART; and (c) the determination of the BART
controls.
    The first component of a BART evaluation is to identify all the
BART eligible sources. The BART eligible sources were identified by
utilizing the criteria in the BART Guidelines as follows:
     Determine whether one or more emissions units at the
facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART
Guidelines (70 FR 39158-39159);
     Determine whether the emission unit(s) was in existence on
August 7, 1977 and begun operation after August 6, 1962;
     Determine whether potential emissions of SO2,
NOX, and PM10 from subject units are 250 tons or
more per year.
    The BART guidelines recommend addressing SO2,
NOX, and PM10 as visibility-impairment pollutants
and leave it up to the discretion of states to evaluate VOC or ammonia
emissions. Because of the lack of tools available to estimate emissions
and subsequently model VOC and ammonia effects on visibility, and
because Delaware is aggressively addressing VOCs through its ozone
SIPs, Delaware determined that SO2, NOX and
PM10/2.5 are the only reasonable contributing visibility
impairing pollutants to target under BART. Delaware identified four
BART eligible sources (consisting of five emission units). One of the
four sources is a steel mill and the other three sources are electric
generating units as described in Table 4.

                                    Table 4--Delaware's BART Eligible Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Plant capacity in   Unit capacity in
        Facility and unit              megawatts           megawatts          Pollutants           Location
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NGR Indian River--Unit 3........  < 750.............  177...............  SO2, NOX, PM......  Millsboro.
City of Dover, McKee Run--Unit 3  > 750.............  114...............  SO2, NOX, PM......  Dover.
Conectiv Edge Moor--Unit 4 and    > 750.............  177 and 446.......  SO2, NOX, PM......  Wilmington.
 Unit 5.
Ezrac Claymont Steel--Electric    Not Applicable....  Not Applicable....  SO2, NOX, PM......  Claymont.
 Arc Furnace and Reheater.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second component of the BART evaluation is to identify those
BART eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area are subject to
BART. As discussed in the BART guidelines, a state may choose to
consider all BART eligible sources to be subject to BART (70 FR
39.161). Consistent with the MANE-VU Board's decision in June 2004 that
because of the collective importance of BART sources, BART
determinations should be made by the MANE-VU states for each BART
eligible source. Delaware identified each of its BART eligible sources
as subject to BART.
    One of the BART eligible facilities in Delaware the Ezrac Claymont
Steel, is a relatively small emissions source with potential emissions
that exceeded the statutory threshold of 250 tons per year or more, but
the actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants of well under
250 tons per year. The steel mill requested a limit on its potential to
emit, to bring its emissions under 250 tons per year threshold for BART
sources. Delaware established federally enforceable terms and
conditions in a Title V permit for the Reheat Furnace and Electric Arc
Furnace at Evraz Claymont Steel Mill that limit the potential to emit
for SO2, NOX, and PM10 to less than
250 tons per year. In the future if Evrac Claymont Steel request an
increase in NOX, SO2 and PM emissions greater
than 250 tons per year

of any one of these pollutants the facility would become subject to
BART.
    The final component of a BART evaluation is making BART
determinations for all BART subject sources. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States
consider the following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any
existing pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement
in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the
use of such technology. Section (e)(2) of the Regional Haze Rule
provides that a State may opt to implement an emissions trading program
or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to
BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. To do so, the State must
demonstrate that the emissions trading program or other alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of BART.
    The three sources in Delaware that the State found to be subject to
BART are EGUs. As discussed below, Delaware chose to address the BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX for these sources
through an alternative program that limits emissions from all coal-
fired and residual oil-fired electric generating units with a nameplate
of 25 MW or greater. As this alternative program does not address PM
emissions, Delaware conducted BART analyses for PM for the three
sources subject to BART.
Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides
    In order to determine appropriate NOX and SO2
emission rates for inclusion in Regulation 1146, Delaware collected
guidance and information from a number of sources to assist in its
evaluation of appropriate emissions limits. The methods Delaware used
to develop Regulation 1146 incorporate many of the criteria used in the
5 factor analyses required by the Regional Haze Rule and included the
following: (1) Control technology effectiveness; (2) capital costs; (3)
complexity with regards to application on cycling units; (4) changes in
plant auxiliary loads; (5) impact on plant operations and flexibility;
(6) operation and maintenance costs; (7) size of the affected units;
and (8) expected remaining operating life of the affected units.
    Of the eight units subject to Delaware's Regulation 1146, four have
been identified as BART units. Regulation 1146 incorporates emissions
rate limitations based on a suite of emission reduction technology
capabilities, but do not specify or require the installation of any
particular emission reduction technology or suite of technologies.
Table 5 shows Delaware promulgated emission rate limitations for
NOX and SO2 in Regulation 1146.

           Table 5--Regulation 1146 Emission Rate Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2009                2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX--Coal and Residual Oil Fired  0.15 lb/MMBTU.....  0.125 lb/MMBTU.
 EGU's.
SO2--Coal Fired EGU's...........  0.37 lb/MMBTU.....  0.26 lb/MMBTU.
SO2--Residual Oil Fired EGU's...  0.5% Sulfur Fuel    0.5% Sulfur Fuel
                                   Oil.                Oil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above rate limits, all pounds per one million British
Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) limits are continuous and based on a rolling
24-hour averaging period, that began on May 1, 2009. For the sulfur in
fuel oil limits, facilities are not permitted to accept fuel oil with
sulfur content greater than 0.5% by weight on or after January 1, 2009.
    Delaware did a comparison of Regulation 1146 emission rate limits
of all eight units regulated by this rule to the BART presumptive
limits for the four BART subject units. This comparison shown in Tables
6 for SO2 and Table 7 for NOX demonstrates that
because Regulation 1146 emissions rate limits are applicable to a fleet
of units larger than the Delaware BART subject units, the total
emissions reductions achieved by Regulation 1146, greatly exceed that
which would be achieved through application of presumptive BART
emissions rate limits on BART subject units only.

                               Table 6--Facility Emission Scenario for SO2 in Tons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012 Reg 1146   Presumptive BART
                         Facility                               2002 SO2             SO2               SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge Moor.................................................            10,527             3,896             7,619
Indian River..............................................            19,956             3,416            15,598
McKee Run.................................................               700               480               960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table 7--Facility Emission Scenario for NOX in Tons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2012 Reg 1146   Presumptive BART
                         Facility                               2002 NOX             NOX               NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge Moor.................................................             3,307             1,464             3,570
Indian River..............................................             4,491             1,643             4,668
McKee Run.................................................               345               120               345
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Particulate Matter
    Delaware required the BART facilities to conduct an analysis of
potential BART control in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). Each
facility began by identifying all available retrofit control
technologies and then eliminating all technically infeasible options.
The control options considered for all of the EGUs included wet
electrostatic precipitators, dry electrostatic precipitators, and

baghouses. However, for Unit 3 at the McKee Run and Unit 5 at the Edge
Moor facilities, the two EGUs that use oil as their primary fuel, a
switch to lower sulfur fuels and/or natural gas were also considered as
potential BART control options.
    The McKee Run Unit 3 is a 102 MW Riley Stoker boiler fired on No. 6
fuel oil with natural gas used as a back-up fuel. The boiler is
equipped with a mechanical multi-cyclone used as a control device for
particulate matter, and equipped with low NOX burners and
fan boost over-fire air to control NOX emissions. The sulfur
content of the No. 6 fuel oil is limited to no greater than 1.0
percent, which restricts SO2 and particulate matter
emissions. The boiler exhausts through a stack 200 feet tall and
produces steam to power a 102 MW electric generator. For this unit,
Delaware determined a sulfur limit of 0.5% as BART for PM, which will
reduce PM emissions by approximately 50%, is cost-effective, and has no
significant energy or non-air quality environmental benefits or dis-
benefits.
    The Edge Moor Unit 4 is a nominal 175 MW dry-bottom, pulverized
coal (primary fuel), tangentially-fired boiler equipped with low-
NOX coal burners (LNB) and overfire air (OFA) for the
control of NOx emissions and an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for
the control of filterable particulate emissions. Unit 4 is currently
permitted to burn coal with a sulfur content of up to 1.0% wt. and
Delaware determined that the dry sorbent injection system (DSI) is BART
for PM since the existing ESP is effective at reducing particulate
matter emissions, and the addition of the DSI system will reduce
condensable emissions.
    The Edge Moor Unit 5 is a nominal 445 MW residual oil-fired
(primary fuel) boiler with oil LNB and OFA for the control of NOx
emissions and a multicylone for the control of filterable particulates.
Unit 5 is currently permitted to burn oil with a sulfur content of up
to 1.0% wt. and Delaware determined a sulfur limit of 0.5% as BART for
PM. This will reduce PM emissions by approximately 50%, is cost-
effective and has no significant energy or non-air quality
environmental benefits or dis-benefits.
    The Indian River Unit 3 is a coal-fired, 165 MW EGU equipped with
cold-side ESP. Delaware determined that the existing control
electrostatic precipitators for PM is BART since it is effective at
reducing particulate matter emissions and none of the other PM control
options evaluated were cost-effective.

C. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    On May 10, 2006, the MANE-VU State Air Directors adopted the Inter-
RPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation Framework that documented the
consultation process within the context of regional haze planning, and
was intended to create greater certainty and understanding among RPOs.
MANE-VU states held ten consultation meetings and/or conference calls
from March 1, 2007 through March 21, 2008. In addition to MANE-VU
members attending these meetings and conference calls, participants
from VISTAS, Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal Land Managers were
also in attendance. In addition to the conference calls and meeting,
the FLMs were given the opportunity to review and comment on each of
the technical documents developed by MANE-VU.
    On April 28, 2008, Delaware submitted a draft Regional Haze SIP to
the relevant FLMs for review and comment pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(i)(2). In a letter dated June 17, 2008, the FLM provided
comments on the draft Regional Haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(i)(3). The comments received from the FLMs were addressed and
incorporated in Delaware's SIP revision.
    On September 23, 2008, Delaware took its Regional Haze SIP out for
public hearing and only one comment was received and it indicated
general agreement with the proposed SIP revision. To address the
requirement for continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under
40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Delaware commits in their SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on Regional Haze issues throughout the
implementation.

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    Consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g), Delaware has
committed to submitting a report on reasonable progress (in the form of
a SIP revision) to the EPA every five years following the initial
submittal of its regional haze SIP. The reasonable progress report will
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the Brigantine National
Wildlife Refuge Class I area, located in New Jersey.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Delaware State
Implementation Plan submitted by the State of Delaware through the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control on
September 25, 2008 that addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period. EPA is proposing to make a determination that
the Delaware Regional Haze SIP contains the emission reductions needed
to achieve Delaware's share of emission reductions agreed upon through
the regional planning process. Furthermore, Delaware's Regional Haze
Plan ensures that emissions from the State will not interfere with the
reasonable progress goals for neighboring states' Class I areas.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to find that this revision meets the
applicable visibility related requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)
including but not limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J),
relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has determined that the
Regional Haze Plan submitted by the State of Delaware satisfies the
requirements of the CAA. EPA is taking this action pursuant to those
provisions of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule approving Delaware's Regional Haze
Plan does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-11839 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/04/2008 06:32:36 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: October 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 211)]
[Notices]
[Page 64624]
[DOCID:fr30oc08-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1803-DR]

Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-1803-DR), dated October 9,
2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 9, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 9, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oklahoma resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
during the period of September 12-19, 2008, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that
such a major disaster exists in the State of Oklahoma.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If
Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is
later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program
also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justin A. Dombrowski, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated
as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Alfalfa, Cimarron, Dewey, Ellis, Grant, Harper, Kay, Major,
Woods, and Woodward Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Oklahoma are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-25871 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2222-2223]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

January 5, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12617-000.
    c. Date filed: October 3, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Fall Creek Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name and Location of Project: The proposed Fall Creek
Hydroelectric Project would be located on Fall Creek in Lane County,
Oregon. The existing Fall Creek Dam is administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    g. Applicant contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Northwest Power Services,
Inc., 975 South State Highway, Logan, UT 84321,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    h. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12617-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Existing Facilities and Proposed Project: The
proposed project, utilizing the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
Fall Creek Dam and reservoir would consist of: (1) A proposed intake
structure, (2) a proposed 650-foot-long, 144-inch-diameter steel
penstock, (3) a proposed powerhouse containing a generator unit with an
installed capacity of 4.7 megawatts, (4) a 1.0-mile-long, 15 kV
transmission line, and (5) appurtenant facilities. The project would
have an annual generation of 17.9 GWh.
    k. Location of Applications: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public

http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item g
above.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent to Director,
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A copy of any
notice of intent, competing application or motion to intervene must
also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in
the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-261 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P