Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11879 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4711 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0784, FRL–9638–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Mississippi; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of two revisions to the 

Mississippi state implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of 

Mississippi through the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) on September 22, 2008, and 

May 9, 2011, that address regional haze 

for the first implementation period. 

These revisions address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness 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 a limited 

approval of these SIP revisions to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Mississippi on the 

basis that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Mississippi SIP. EPA has 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Mississippi regional 

haze SIP because of deficiencies in the 

State’s regional haze SIP submittal 

arising from the remand by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA 

of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

Consequently, EPA is not proposing to 

take action in this rulemaking to address 

the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11880 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even 

of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 

from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 

Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0784, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0784, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0784.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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 www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Waterson or Michele Notarianni, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara 

Waterson can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9061 and by 

electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the 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) 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Mississippi’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. No Affected Class I Areas in Mississippi 

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 to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Mississippi and Surrounding 

Areas 

5. BART 

C. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

D. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

E. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

F. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of Mississippi’s September 22, 2008, 

and May 9, 2011, SIP revisions 

addressing regional haze under CAA 

sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because 

the revisions as a whole strengthen the 

Mississippi SIP. Throughout this 

document, references to Mississippi’s 

(or MDEQ’s or the State’s) ‘‘regional 

haze SIP’’ refer to Mississippi’s original 

September 22, 2008, regional haze SIP 

submittal, as later amended in a SIP 

revision submitted May 9, 2011. This 

proposed rulemaking explains the basis 

for EPA’s proposed limited approval 

action.1

In a separate action, EPA has 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Mississippi regional 

haze SIP because of deficiencies in the 

State’s regional haze SIP submittal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11881 

2Mississippi’s SIP revisions rely on CAIR to 

address BART requirements related to both nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). However, 

EPA’s replacement rule for CAIR (i.e., the 

‘‘Transport Rule,’’ also known as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule) includes Mississippi only in the 

trading program to cover NOX. States such as 

Mississippi that are subject to the requirements of 

the Transport Rule trading program only for NOX

must still address BART for SO2 and other visibility 

impairing pollutants. On December 30, 2011, EPA 

proposed a limited disapproval of the Mississippi 

regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the 

State’s regional haze SIP submittal arising from the 

State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional 

haze requirements. In that action, EPA also 

proposed to issue a Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) to address the deficiencies in Mississippi’s SIP 

associated with the BART requirements for NOX for 

electrical generating units (EGUs) based on EPA’s 

proposed revisions to the RHR allowing states to 

substitute participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. 

However, EPA did not propose a plan to address 

the deficiencies associated with the BART 

requirements for SO2 since the Transport Rule does 

not cover SO2 emissions from Mississippi EGUs. 

Because Mississippi also relied on CAIR in 

assessing the need for emissions reductions for SO2

from EGUs to satisfy BART requirements, the State 

will have to re-evaluate EGUs with respect to SO2

BART requirements. 

3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 4Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas 

consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 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. See 44 

FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 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 area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

5Albuquerque/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). 

arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze 

requirements. See 76 FR 82219 

(December 30, 2011). EPA is not 

proposing to take action in today’s 

rulemaking on issues associated with 

Mississippi’s reliance on CAIR in its 

regional haze SIP.2 Comments on EPA’s 

proposed limited disapproval of 

Mississippi’s regional haze SIP are 

accepted at the docket for EPA’s 

December 20, 2011 rulemaking (see 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729). The comment period for EPA’s 

December 30, 2011, rulemaking is 

scheduled to end on February 28, 2012. 

II. 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., SO2, 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 3 in many Class I 

areas 4 (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. See 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

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 areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment.’’ See 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. 

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 35713), the RHR. The RHR 

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 III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11882 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) RPO 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 southeastern 

United States. Member state and tribal 

governments include: Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern 

Band of the Cherokee Indians. 

III. What are the requirements for 

Regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the 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.6

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, i.e., 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11883 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

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 emissions 

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 emissions sources that may 

be affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. See 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 7 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. 

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 emissions 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 visibilityimpairing 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 emissions 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 emissions 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. See CAA section 

169(g)(4); see 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 

CAIR. See 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 FIP in 40 

CFR part 97 need not require affected 

BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, 

and maintain BART for emissions of 

SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Because CAIR did not address direct 

emissions of PM, states were still 

required to conduct a BART analysis for 

PM emissions from EGUs subject to 

BART for that pollutant. Challenges to 

CAIR, however, resulted in the remand 

of the rule to EPA. See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). 

EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to 

address the interstate transport of NOX

and SO2 in the eastern United States. 

See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the 

Transport Rule,’’ also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this 

proposed finding, EPA also proposed to 

revise the RHR to allow states to 

substitute participation in the trading 

programs under the Transport Rule for 

source-specific BART. EPA has not yet 

taken final action on that rule. Also on 

December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the DC Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolutions of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11884 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. See 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. See 

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 emissions 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) 

Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 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 

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. See 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11885 

8See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 

2007). 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Mississippi’s regional haze submittal? 

On September 22, 2008, and May 9, 

2011, MDEQ submitted revisions to the 

Mississippi SIP to address regional haze 

as required by EPA’s RHR. 

A. No Affected Class I Areas in 

Mississippi 

Mississippi has no Class I area within 

its borders. The following Class I areas 

are the closest to the State’s boundaries: 

the Breton National Wildlife Refuge 

(Breton) in Louisiana, Sipsey 

Wilderness Area (Sipsey) in Alabama, 

and Caney Creek Wilderness Area 

(Caney Creek) in Arkansas. Mississippi 

is responsible for developing a regional 

haze SIP that addresses sources within 

its borders that affect Class I areas in 

other states and for consulting with 

these other states. The September 22, 

2008, Mississippi regional haze SIP, as 

later amended on May 9, 2011, 

identified and considered emissions 

sources within Mississippi that may 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas in 

neighboring states as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO 

worked with the State in developing the 

technical analyses used to make these 

determinations, including state-by-state 

contributions to visibility impairment in 

specific Class I areas, which included 

the Class I areas affected by emissions 

from Mississippi. 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in section III.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by a 

state for achieving RPGs in Class I areas 

affected by emissions sources in the 

state. Mississippi’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 end of the baseline period 

starting in 2004 until 2018. The 

Mississippi LTS was developed by the 

State, in coordination with the VISTAS 

RPO, through an evaluation of the 

following components: (1) Identification 

of the emissions units within 

Mississippi and in surrounding states 

that likely have the largest impacts 

currently on visibility at Class I areas in 

nearby states, and (2) estimation of 

emissions reductions for 2018 based on 

all controls required or expected under 

federal and state regulations for the 

2004–2018 period (including BART). 

In a separate action proposing limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 

a number of states, EPA noted that these 

states relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a LTS sufficient 

to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. See 

76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In 

that action, EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval of Mississippi’s regional 

haze SIP submittal insofar as the SIP 

relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA is 

not taking action on that aspect of 

Mississippi’s regional haze SIP in this 

action. Comments on the December 30, 

2011, proposed determination are 

accepted at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0729. The comment period 

for EPA’s December 30, 2011, proposed 

rulemaking is scheduled to end on 

February 28, 2012. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from Mississippi. The 2018 emissions 

inventory was developed by projecting 

2002 emissions and applying emissions 

reductions expected from federal and 

state regulations affecting the emissions 

of VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, 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 IV.B.3, VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses, which 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into 

Mississippi’s regional haze analyses, 

Mississippi did not further evaluate NH3

and VOC emissions sources for potential 

controls under BART or reasonable 

progress. 

VISTAS developed emissions for five 

inventory source classifications: 

stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. 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. VISTAS estimated 

emissions on a countywide level for the 

inventory categories of: (a) Stationary 

area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 

mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can 

move but does not use the roadways); 

and (c) biogenic sources (which are 

natural sources of emissions, such as 

trees). On-road mobile source emissions 

are estimated by vehicle type and road 

type, and are summed to the 

countywide level. 

There are many federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that VISTAS and Mississippi anticipate 

will reduce emissions between the end 

of the baseline period and 2018. 

Emissions reductions from these control 

programs are projected to achieve 

substantial visibility improvement by 

2018 in the Class I areas in surrounding 

states. The control programs relied upon 

by Mississippi include CAIR; EPA’s 

NOX SIP Call; North Carolina’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act; Georgia multipollutant rule; consent decrees for 

Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and 

Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant 

Crist, East Kentucky Power 

Cooperative—Cooper and Spurlock 

stations, and American Electric Power; 

NOX and/or VOC reductions from the 

control rules in 

1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, 

Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; 

North Carolina’s NOX Reasonably 

Available Control Technology; state rule 

for Philip Morris USA and Norandal 

USA in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock 

Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area; federal 2007 heavy duty diesel 

engine standards for on-road trucks and 

buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for 

on-road vehicles; federal large spark 

ignition and recreational vehicle 

controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel 

rules. Controls from various federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules were also 

utilized in the development of the 2018 

emissions inventory projections. These 

MACT rules include the industrial 

boiler/process heater MACT (referred to 

as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the 

combustion turbine and reciprocating 

internal combustion engines MACTs, 

and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year 

MACT standards. 

Effective July 30, 2007, the DC Circuit 

mandated the vacatur and remand of the 

Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.8 This 

MACT was vacated since it was directly 

affected by the vacatur and remand of 

the Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incinerator 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). 

The VISTAS modeling included 

emissions reductions from the vacated 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11886 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Mississippi did not redo its modeling 

analysis when the rule was re-issued. 

Even though Mississippi’s modeling is 

based on the vacated Industrial Boiler 

MACT limits, the State’s modeling 

conclusions are unlikely to be affected 

because the expected reductions due to 

the vacated rule were relatively small 

compared to the State’s total SO2, PM2.5, 

and coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.2 

percent, depending on the pollutant, of 

the projected 2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10

inventory). Thus, EPA does not expect 

that differences between the vacated 

and final Industrial Boiler MACT 

emissions limits would affect the 

adequacy of the existing Mississippi 

regional haze SIP. If there is a need to 

address discrepancies between 

projected emissions reductions from the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

Industrial Boiler MACT issued March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects 

Mississippi to do so in the State’s fiveyear progress report. 

Below in Tables 2 and 3 are 

summaries of the 2002 baseline and 

2018 estimated emissions inventories 

for Mississippi (based on the data in the 

State’s September 22, 2008, submittal). 

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 43,852 104,661 11,044 21,106 1,359 103,389 

Area .......................................................................................................... 131,808 4,200 50,401 343,377 58,721 771 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 86,811 110,672 2,089 2,828 3,549 4,566 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................................................................... 41,081 88,787 4,690 5,010 23 11,315 

Total .................................................................................................. 303,552 308,320 68,224 372,321 63,652 120,041 

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR MISSISSIPPI

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................................................................... 46,452 71,804 17,172 30,046 1,591 54,367 

Area .......................................................................................................... 140,134 4,483 53,222 375,495 69,910 746 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 31,306 30,259 810 1,607 4,520 435 

Non-Road Mobile ..................................................................................... 28,842 68,252 3,203 3,452 29 6,638 

Total .................................................................................................. 246,734 174,798 74,407 410,600 76,050 62,186 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

VISTAS performed modeling for the 

regional haze LTS for the 10 

southeastern states, including 

Mississippi. The modeling analysis is a 

complex technical evaluation that began 

with selection of the modeling system. 

VISTAS used the following modeling 

system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model 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 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emissions inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire, and biogenic emissions sources for 

photochemical grid models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. The 

photochemical model selected for this 

study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was 

modified through VISTAS with a 

module for Secondary Organics 

Aerosols in an open and transparent 

manner that was also subjected to 

outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer cells that covers the 10 

VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia) and states 

adjacent to them. This grid is nested 

within a larger national CMAQ 

modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer 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. VISTAS 

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 VISTAS 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-pmrh-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’’). 

VISTAS 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11887 

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. VISTAS used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress and 

examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

VISTAS 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 for Class I areas in the 

states neighboring Mississippi. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the State of Mississippi 

provided the appropriate supporting 

documentation to VISTAS and 

coordinated with other affected states 

for all required analyses since there are 

no Class I areas in Mississippi. 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

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, source sectors, and 

geographic areas, VISTAS developed 

emissions 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 

VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution 

assessment, based on IMPROVE 

monitoring data, demonstrated that 

ammonium sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, ammonium sulfate 

accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the 

calculated light extinction at the inland 

Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 

percent of the calculated light extinction 

for all but one of the coastal Class I areas 

in the VISTAS states. In contrast, 

ammonium nitrate contributed less than 

five percent of the calculated light 

extinction at the VISTAS Class I areas 

on the 20 percent worst visibility days. 

Particulate organic matter (organic 

carbon) accounted for 20 percent or less 

of the light extinction on the 20 percent 

worst visibility days at the VISTAS 

Class I areas. 

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas 

into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or 

‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ 

similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 

geography, meteorology), to better 

represent variations in model sensitivity 

and performance within the VISTAS 

region, and to describe the common 

factors influencing visibility conditions 

in the two types of Class I areas. 

Results from VISTAS’ emissions 

sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at all Class I areas in 

VISTAS. Mississippi concluded that 

reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 

non-EGU point sources would have the 

greatest visibility benefits for the Class 

I areas impacted by Mississippi sources. 

Because ammonium nitrate is a small 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment on the 20 percent worst 

days at the inland Class I areas in 

VISTAS, the benefits of reducing NOX

and NH3 emissions at these sites are 

small. 

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses 

show that VOC emissions from biogenic 

sources such as vegetation also 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

However, control of these biogenic 

sources of VOC would be extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. The 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions are minor compared to the 

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions would have little if any 

visibility benefits at the Class I areas in 

and adjacent to the VISTAS region. The 

sensitivity analyses also show that 

reducing primary carbon from point 

sources, ground level sources, or fires is 

projected to have small to no visibility 

benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas. 

Mississippi considered the factors 

listed in under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) 

and in section III.E of this action to 

develop its LTS as described below. 

Mississippi, in conjunction with 

VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that 

elemental carbon (a product of highway 

and non-road diesel engines, 

agricultural burning, prescribed fires, 

and wildfires), fine soils (a product of 

construction activities and activities 

that generate fugitive dust), and 

ammonia are relatively minor 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

the Class I areas in states near to 

Mississippi. Mississippi considered 

agricultural and forestry smoke 

management techniques to address 

visibility impacts from elemental 

carbon. Mississippi has drafted but not 

finalized a Smoke Management Plan 

that addresses the issues laid out in the 

EPA’s 1998 Interim Air Quality Policy 

on Wildland and Prescribed Fires 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. 

Under current smoke management 

practices, the Mississippi Forestry 

Commission, in conjunction with 

MDEQ, issues burning permits based on 

daily weather forecasts. A permit is 

required for any fire set for a recognized 

agricultural or forestry purpose. With 

regard to fine soils, the State considered 

those activities that generate fugitive 

dust, including construction activities. 

Mississippi has no specific provisions to 

mitigate dust emissions from 

construction activities. However, there 

are nuisance provisions in State 

regulations that would apply if 

construction or other activities were 

generating significant emissions. Given 

the distance of the closest Class I area 

(Breton) to Mississippi, the nuisance 

provisions may provide adequate 

control from these activities. With 

regard to ammonia, the State has chosen 

not to develop controls for ammonia 

emissions from Mississippi sources in 

this first implementation period because 

of their relatively minor contribution to 

visibility impairment. 

EPA preliminarily concurs with the 

State’s technical demonstration showing 

that elemental carbon, fine soils, and 

ammonia are not significant 

contributors to visibility in any Class I 

area, and therefore, proposes to find that 

Mississippi has adequately satisfied 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by VISTAS 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 

VISTAS region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. 

Additional, smaller benefits are 

projected from SO2 emissions 

reductions from non-utility industrial 

point sources. SO2 emissions 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from other RPO regions are 

comparatively small in contrast to the 

VISTAS states’ contributions and, thus, 

controlling sources outside of the 

VISTAS region is predicted to provide 

less significant improvements in 

visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS. 

SO2 sources for which it is 

demonstrated that no additional 

controls are reasonable in this current 

implementation period will not be 

exempted from future assessments for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11888 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related 

values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ 

States cooperated with FLMs, the EPA, industry, 

environmental organizations, and academia to 

complete a technical assessment of the impacts of 

acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on 

sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. 

The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 

2002. 

controls in subsequent implementation 

periods or, when appropriate, from the 

five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future 

implementation periods, additional 

controls on these SO2 sources evaluated 

in the first implementation period may 

be determined to be reasonable, based 

on a reasonable progress control 

evaluation, for continued progress 

toward natural conditions for the 20 

percent worst days and to avoid further 

degradation of the 20 percent best days. 

Similarly, in subsequent 

implementation periods, the State may 

use different criteria for identifying 

sources for evaluation and may consider 

other pollutants as visibility conditions 

change over time. 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources to 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Mississippi and 

Surrounding Areas 

As discussed in section IV.B.3. of this 

action, through comprehensive 

evaluations by VISTAS and the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains 

Initiative (SAMI),9 the VISTAS states 

concluded that sulfate particles 

resulting from SO2 emissions account 

for the greatest portion of the regional 

haze affecting the Class I areas in 

VISTAS region and surrounding states. 

Utility and non-utility boilers are the 

main sources of SO2 emissions within 

the southeastern United States. VISTAS 

developed a methodology for the 

VISTAS states, which enables the states 

to focus their reasonable progress 

analyses on those geographic regions 

and source categories that impact 

visibility at these states’ Class I areas. 

The state in which a Class I area is 

located is responsible for determining 

which sources, both inside and outside 

of that state, to evaluate for reasonable 

progress controls. Although Mississippi 

has no Class I areas, at the time VISTAS 

was performing this analysis, many of 

the surrounding states had not finalized 

what methodology they would use to 

prioritize and identify potential sources 

for reasonable progress evaluation. To 

assist the State to identify potential 

emissions units that might be raised 

during the consultation process with 

these other states, MDEQ applied the 

VISTAS methodology to identify 

emissions units that could potentially 

warrant further analysis based on their 

impacts on nearby Class I areas in 

neighboring states. 

The State established a threshold to 

determine which emissions units may 

be identified by neighboring states with 

Class I areas to be evaluated for 

potential reasonable progress control 

depending on those states’ criteria for 

evaluation. In applying this 

methodology, MDEQ first calculated the 

fractional contribution to visibility 

impairment from all emissions units 

within the SO2 AOI for those 

surrounding Class I areas in other states 

potentially impacted by emissions from 

emissions units in Mississippi. The 

State then identified those emissions 

units with a contribution of one percent 

or more to the visibility impairment at 

that particular Class I area, and 

evaluated each of these units for control 

measures for reasonable progress, using 

the following four ‘‘reasonable progress 

factors’’ as required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) Cost of 

compliance; (2) time necessary for 

compliance; (3) energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) remaining useful 

life of the emissions unit. 

Mississippi’s SO2 AOI methodology 

identified two sources that might 

potentially impact the Breton Class I 

area: Mississippi Power Company— 

Plant Watson and the DuPont Delisle 

facility, both in Harrison County. Since 

the time of Mississippi’s original 2008 

SIP submittal, Louisiana completed and 

submitted a regional haze SIP to address 

visibility at Breton. Neither Plant 

Watson nor the DuPont DeLisle facility 

were identified by Louisiana in 

consultations with Mississippi or in the 

Louisiana regional haze SIP as sources 

identified for reasonable progress 

control evaluation as sources potentially 

impacting Breton. Consequently, 

Mississippi determined that no further 

control analysis was necessary at these 

facilities at this time and no controls 

were adopted for reasonable progress for 

Mississippi Power Company—Plant 

Watson or the DuPont DeLisle facility 

during this implementation period. 

Mississippi will continue to consult 

with Louisiana to assess the potential 

impact of facilities in Mississippi to 

help meet the visibility goals for Breton 

for future implementation periods. 

Consistent with EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance, since the Breton 

Class I area is in Louisiana, EPA is 

proposing to find that Mississippi 

appropriately relied on Louisiana’s 

determination of which sources to 

prioritize for reasonable progress control 

evaluation during this implementation 

period. 

5. BART 

BART is an element of Mississippi’s 

LTS for the first implementation period. 

The BART evaluation process consists 

of three components: (a) An 

identification of all the BART-eligible 

sources, (b) an assessment of whether 

the BART-eligible sources are subject to 

BART and (c) a determination of the 

BART controls. These components, as 

addressed by MDEQ and MDEQ’s 

findings, are discussed as follows. 

A. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the State’s boundaries. 

MDEQ identified the BART-eligible 

sources in Mississippi by utilizing the 

three eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s 

regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or 

more emissions units at the facility fit 

within one of the 26 categories listed in 

the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions 

units were not in operation prior to 

August 7, 1962, and were in existence 

on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or 

more per year of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant. 

The BART Guidelines also direct 

states to address SO2, NOX, and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairment 

pollutants, and to exercise judgment in 

determining whether VOC or ammonia 

emissions from a source impair 

visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. 

VISTAS modeling demonstrated that 

VOC from anthropogenic sources and 

ammonia from point sources are not 

significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants in Mississippi, as discussed 

in section IV.B.3. of this action. MDEQ 

has determined, based on the VISTAS 

modeling, that ammonia emissions from 

the State’s point sources are not 

anticipated to cause or contribute 

significantly to any impairment of 

visibility in Class I areas and should be 

exempt for BART purposes. 

B. BART-Subject Sources 

The second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11889 

10Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer on the following Web 

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

11EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. 

The State relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2

and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2

and NOX were not analyzed. 

12The facility met model plant criteria as 

provided for in the BART Guidelines for PM 

emissions only. No further modeling was 

performed. 

13 Ibid. 

14The facility met the model plant criteria as 

provided for in the BART Guidelines for PM 

emissions only. No further modeling was 

performed. 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Mississippi required 

each of its BART-eligible sources to 

develop and submit dispersion 

modeling to assess the extent of their 

contribution to visibility impairment at 

surrounding Class I areas. 

1. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

use the CALPUFF 10 modeling system 

(CALPUFF) or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area, 

and therefore, to determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA 

believes that CALPUFF is the best 

regulatory modeling application 

currently available for predicting a 

single source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment (70 FR 39162). Mississippi, 

in coordination with VISTAS, used the 

CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in Mississippi were subject to or exempt 

from BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS 

states, including Mississippi, developed 

a ‘‘Protocol for the Application of 

CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’ 

Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, 

industrial sources, trade groups, and 

other interested parties, actively 

participated in the development and 

review of the VISTAS protocol. 

VISTAS developed a post-processing 

approach to use the new IMPROVE 

equation with the CALPUFF model 

results so that the BART analyses could 

consider both the old and new 

IMPROVE equations. The choice 

between use of the old or the new 

equation for calculating the visibility 

metrics for each Class I area is made by 

the state in which the Class I area is 

located. Mississippi allowed the use of 

the new IMPROVE equation in 

performing the screening analysis. The 

States of Alabama, Arkansas, and 

Louisiana, whose Class I areas were 

potentially impacted by Mississippi’s 

BART sources, also allowed the use of 

the new IMPROVE equation for BART 

analyses. 

2. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes to visibility 

impairment’ may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if they conclude that the location of a 

large number of BART-eligible sources 

in proximity of a Class I area justifies 

this approach. 

Mississippi used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciview for 

determining which sources are subject 

to BART. The State concluded that the 

threshold of 0.5 deciview, which is the 

highest level allowed by the BART 

Guidelines, was appropriate in this 

situation. This threshold of 0.5 deciview 

was also used by the surrounding states 

with Class I areas that sources in 

Mississippi could impact. MDEQ 

concluded that a 0.5 deciview threshold 

was appropriate in this instance. EPA is 

proposing to agree with Mississippi that 

the overall impacts of its BART-eligible 

sources are not sufficient to warrant a 

lower contribution threshold and that a 

0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate 

in this instance. 

3. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

Mississippi initially identified 15 

facilities with BART-eligible sources. 

The State subsequently determined that 

13 of these sources are exempt from 

being considered subject to BART. Table 

5 identifies the 15 BART-eligible 

sources located in Mississippi and, of 

these, lists the two sources subject to 

BART. 

TABLE 5—MISSISSIPPI BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART: 

Chevron Products Company, Pascagoula Refinery 

Mississippi Phosphates Corporation (MPC) 

Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to BART: 

EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources: 11

Entergy Mississippi Inc, Baxter Wilson Plant 

Entergy Mississippi Inc, Gerald Andrus Plant 

Mississippi Power Company, Chevron Cogenerating Plant 

Mississippi Power Company, Plant Jack Watson 

Mississippi Power Company, Plant Victor J Daniel 

South Mississippi Electric Power Association, Moselle Plant: 12

South Mississippi Electric Power Association, R D Morrow Plant: 13

Non-EGU BART Modeling Exempt Sources 

Georgia Pacific Corp, Monticello Mill 

Greenwood Utilities, Henderson Station 

Holcim US Inc. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11890 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—MISSISSIPPI BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES—Continued 

International Paper Company, Vicksburg Mill 

Pursue Energy Corp, Thomasville Gas Plant 

Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc, Yazoo City: 14

Two of the eight non-EGU facilities, 

Chevron Products Company— 

Pascagoula Refinery and MPC, were 

determined to be ‘‘subject to BART’’ and 

were required to perform an engineering 

analysis, which included an analysis of 

the five CAA BART factors, their 

evaluation of potential BART options, 

and proposed BART determinations. Six 

of the non-EGU sources demonstrated 

that they are exempt from being subject 

to BART. Three of these facilities, 

Georgia Pacific Corp—Monticello Mill, 

Holcim US Inc., and International Paper 

Company—Vicksburg Mill, modeled 

visibility impacts of less than 0.5 

deciview at the affected Class I areas. 

This modeling involved assessing the 

visibility impact of emissions of NOX, 

SO2, and PM10 as applicable to 

individual facilities. The remaining 

facility, Terra Mississippi Nitrogen Inc. 

in Yazoo City, met the model plant 

criteria for exempting out of BART 

certain BART-eligible sources that share 

specific characteristics as allowed by 

EPA’s BART Guidelines (70 FR 39163) 

and no further modeling was required. 

All seven BART-eligible EGUs relied 

on Mississippi’s decision to rely upon 

CAIR emissions limits for SO2 and NOX

to satisfy their obligation to comply 

with BART requirements in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, 

these EGU sources only modeled PM10

emissions. Five of the seven EGUs 

provided modeling demonstrating that 

their PM10 emissions do not contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. Two of the facilities, South 

Mississippi Electric Power 

Association—Moselle Plant and South 

Mississippi Electric Power 

Association—R D Morrow Plant, met the 

model plant criteria in EPA’s BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39163) based on PM 

emissions only and no further modeling 

was required. 

Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for 

NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs 

was fully approvable and in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the 

BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for 

NOX and SO2 and other provisions in 

this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In 

a separate action, EPA has proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Mississippi 

regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the D.C. Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See 

76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not 

taking action in this notice to address 

the state’s reliance on CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements, 

including BART for SO2 and NOX

emissions from EGUs. 

States such as Mississippi that are 

subject to the requirements of the 

Transport Rule trading program only for 

NOX must still address BART for SO2

and other visibility impairing 

pollutants. See 76 FR at 82224. While 

EPA proposed on December 30, 2011, to 

issue a FIP to address the deficiencies 

in Mississippi’s SIP associated with the 

BART requirements for NOX for EGUs 

based on EPA’s proposed revisions to 

the RHR allowing states to substitute 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule for sourcespecific BART, EPA did not propose a 

plan to address the deficiencies 

associated with the BART requirements 

for SO2 since the Transport Rule does 

not cover SO2 emissions from 

Mississippi EGUs. Because Mississippi 

also relied on CAIR in assessing the 

need for emissions reductions for SO2

from EGUs to satisfy BART, the State 

will have to re-evaluate EGUs with 

respect to SO2 BART requirements. If 

EPA finalizes the limited disapproval 

for Mississippi’s reliance on CAIR to 

satisfy the regional haze SIP 

requirements for SO2, that action will 

trigger a 24-month clock for EPA to 

either implement a FIP to address those 

requirements or approve a revised SIP 

from the State that addresses SO2 BART 

for its EGUs. 

C. BART Determinations 

Two BART-eligible non-EGU sources 

(i.e., Chevron Products Company— 

Pascagoula Refinery and MPC) had 

modeled visibility impacts of more than 

the 0.5 deciview threshold for BART 

exemption. These two facilities are 

therefore considered to be subject to 

BART and, consequently, were required 

to perform an engineering analysis, 

which included an analysis of the five 

CAA BART factors, their evaluation of 

potential BART options, and proposed 

BART determinations. 

In accordance with the BART 

Guidelines, to determine the level of 

control that represents BART for each 

source, the State first reviewed existing 

controls on these units to assess 

whether these constituted the best 

controls currently available, then 

identified what other technically 

feasible controls are available, and 

finally, evaluated the technically 

feasible controls using the five BART 

statutory factors. The State’s evaluations 

and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, 

are summarized below. 

1. Chevron Products Company— 

Pascagoula Refinery 

The modeled visibility impact 

resulting from Chevron Refinery’s 

emissions was 3.89 deciview at Breton. 

As stated in the State’s submittal, 

Chevron has significant emissions 

reductions planned due to permitted 

projects that are currently or will soon 

be underway and to an enforcement 

consent decree issued June 7, 2005. As 

a result of ongoing and planned 

projects, emissions of NOX from BART 

eligible sources will be reduced from 

1,480 pounds per hour (lb/hr) to 521 lb/ 

hr, SO2 emissions will be reduced from 

3,154 lb/hr to 248 lb/hr, and PM10

emissions will be reduced from 187 lb/ 

hr to 146 lb/hr. 

For SO2, the units affected by the 2005 

consent decree emitted 3,032.7 lb/hr 

daily maximum average from 2001– 

2003, which will be reduced by 2,884.3 

lb/hr of SO2. The units involved in 

Chevron’s consent decree contribute 96 

percent of the SO2 emissions for the 

refinery’s BART-eligible sources. The 

consent decree will reduce NOX by 960 

lb/hr and PM10 by 41 lb/hr with a 

modeled visibility improvement of 2.99 

deciview at Breton. 

Mississippi evaluated three additional 

control options, two affecting specific 

NOX generating units and one for 

additional SO2 control. The first option 

(Option 1) was to install ultra-low NOX

burners (ULNB) on three of the largest 

emissions units. These units are the 

Crude Unit 1 Vacuum Furnace (F–1102), 

the Crude Unit 1 Atmospheric Furnace 

(F–1101), and the Rheniformer I Reactor 

Furnaces (F–1501/2/3). This option 

could reduce NOX emissions from these 

sources from 139 lb/hr to 38 lb/hr, a 

reduction of 101 lb/hr, and total refinery 

BART-eligible source NOX emissions 

would be reduced by 17 percent from 

the currently planned future emissions. 

The second option (Option 2) was to 

also install ULNB in the Hydrogen Plant 

No. 2 (F–6410) process heater. This 

source has a relatively high NOX

emissions rate before control on a lb/hr 

basis. However, the combustion air for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11891 

this process heater is the flue gas from 

the associated gas turbine. The ULNBs 

would only control NOX formed in the 

furnace. Therefore, the estimated NOX

emissions reduction is 50 percent. This 

option would reduce NOX emissions 

from this source from 148 lb/hr to 74 lb/ 

hr, a reduction of 74 lb/hr. By installing 

ULNB in the two crude units, 

Rhenformer I and the hydrogen plant, 

total refinery BART-eligible source NOX

emissions could be reduced by 31 

percent from the currently planned 

future emissions. All the other NOX

sources have relatively small emissions. 

A third option (Option 3) considered 

to reduce SO2 emissions is to decrease 

the sulfur content of the refinery fuel 

gas. Currently, the hydrogen sulfide 

(H2S) content of the refinery fuel gas is 

controlled to approximately 50 part per 

million by volume (ppmv), which is 

well below the New Source Performance 

Standard emissions limit of 162 ppmv 

of H2S. However, the refinery fuel gas 

also contains approximately 100 ppmv 

of non-H2S sulfur compounds such as 

various mercaptans. The Merox process 

could be used to reduce the mercaptan 

content of the refinery fuel gas. In this 

process, the mercaptans are removed 

with caustic-containing Merox catalyst. 

Mercaptans in the rich caustic are 

oxidized with air to disulfides that are 

decanted. The regenerated caustic is 

recycled. For this analysis, 90 percent 

control of mercaptans was assumed. 

This option would reduce SO2

emissions from 248 lb/hr to 189 lb/hr. 

For PM10, MDEQ determined that 

there are no available additional 

controls for refinery fuel gas 

combustion. Most of the other 

remaining BART PM10 emissions are 

refinery fuel gas combustion emissions, 

which comprise a small fraction of the 

facility’s total BART PM10 emissions. 

Capital costs range from $8.6 million 

for Option 1 to $40.6 million for Option 

3. Annual operating costs range from 

$1.3 million per year (yr) to $5.9 

million/yr. Future emissions controls 

already planned will reduce the number 

of days greater than 1.0 deciview at 

Breton from 58 days to 71 days to only 

one to five days, depending upon the 

year modeled. Similar results for the 

eighth highest delta deciview show a 

reduction from a range of 2.9 deciviews 

to 3.9 deciviews for the baseline case to 

only 0.7 deciview to 0.9 deciview for 

the future planned case. The additional 

emissions reductions from the three 

control options beyond the already 

planned emissions reductions will 

provide only very small additional 

visibility improvements, ranging from 

0.043 deciview for Option 1 to 0.16 

deciview for Option 3. For each option, 

the total cost effectiveness and 

incremental cost effectiveness exceed 

$29 million/deciview. Mississippi 

determined that these further reductions 

would be very costly without significant 

visibility improvement. Therefore, 

MDEQ determined that these options 

are not BART due to the high cost for 

small visibility gains. Mississippi has 

determined that the emissions controls 

and resulting reductions from the 

consent decree constitute BART. 

2. MPC 

On November 9, 2010, MPC was 

issued a Permit to Construct Air 

Emissions Equipment that included Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

emissions limits for SO2 and sulfuric 

acid mist (H2SO4). With this project, 

MPC is making many upgrades, 

including replacing the absorption 

towers, installing new economizers and 

new superheaters, replacing duct work 

and piping, relocating new or 

refurbished acid coolers (i.e., heat 

exchangers), repairing the cooling 

tower, and replacing the vanadium 

catalyst with cesium catalyst in the 

third and fourth converter passes. These 

upgrades will not result in increased 

sulfuric acid production capacity, 

which is currently permitted at 1,800 

tons per day per sulfuric acid plant, but 

should allow for significant decreases in 

down-time due to more reliable 

operation of the plants. This will result 

in an actual-to-potential increase in tons 

per year (tpy) of SO2; however, the 

project will result in greater emissions 

controls and lower permitted short-term 

and annual emissions for both 

pollutants. 

BACT for SO2 was determined to be 

the replacement of vanadium catalyst 

with cesium catalyst in the third and 

fourth converter passes. The permitted 

SO2 limit is 3.0 pounds (lb) of SO2 per 

ton of sulfuric acid produced, not to 

exceed 225 lb/hr SO2 and 1,700 tpy SO2. 

MDEQ considers this emissions limit 

appropriate as meeting BART for this 

source. 

BACT for H2SO4 was determined to be 

the installation of vertical tube mist 

eliminators in the interpass absorption 

tower. The final absorption tower 

already has these mist eliminators 

installed. MPC is also replacing the 

economizer prior to the final absorption 

tower with a larger one which will have 

the effect of lowering the exhaust gas 

temperature and thus, reducing H2SO4

emissions. The permitted H2SO4 limit is 

0.10 lb H2SO4 per ton of sulfuric acid 

produced, not to exceed 7.5 lb/hr H2SO4

and 32.85 tpy H2SO4. MDEQ considers 

this emissions limit appropriate as 

meeting BART for this source. 

3. EPA Assessment 

EPA proposes to agree with 

Mississippi’s analyses and conclusions 

for the two BART-subject EGU sources 

described above. EPA has reviewed the 

State’s analyses and proposes to 

conclude that they were conducted in a 

manner that is consistent with EPA’s 

BART Guidelines and EPA’s Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual (http://

www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#

cccinfo). While lower emissions limits 

have been determined to be BACT for 

sulfuric acid plants at other facilities, 

both BACT and BART are case-by-case 

determinations. The BACT analysis 

appropriately documented that the 

limited additional capacities and 

configuration of catalyst beds for MPC’s 

facility limited its ability to achieve 

reductions similar to those achieved at 

other facilities. 

4. Enforceability of Emissions Limits 

The BART determinations for each of 

the facilities discussed above and the 

resulting emissions limits are adopted 

by Mississippi into the State’s regional 

haze SIP submittal. The limits are also 

in consent decrees and will be included 

in the facilities’ title V permits. A copy 

of the consent decree for Chevron 

Products Company—Pascagoula 

Refinery was included in Appendix L of 

the Mississippi regional haze submittal 

for informational purposes. A copy of 

the construction permit issued for MPC 

on November 9, 2010, was included in 

Mississippi’s supplemental submittal of 

May 9, 2011, for informational 

purposes. 

C. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in sections 

III.F and III.G of this action. Under 

EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI 

portion of a state SIP must address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 

vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a 

‘‘view perceived from within the 

mandatory Class I Federal area of a 

specific landmark or panorama located 

outside the boundary of the mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any 

mandatory Class I area includes any 

integral vista associated with that area. 

Since there are no Class I areas in 

Mississippi, no integral vistas in 

Mississippi have been identified. In 

addition, none of its sources are affected 

by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the 

Mississippi regional haze SIP submittal 

does not explicitly address the two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11892 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

requirements regarding coordination of 

the regional haze with the RAVI LTS 

and monitoring provisions. 

In the State’s submittal, MDEQ 

updated its visibility monitoring 

program and developed a LTS to 

address regional haze. Also in this 

submittal, MDEQ affirmed its 

commitment to complete items required 

in the future under EPA’s RHR. 

Specifically, MDEQ made a 

commitment to review and revise its 

regional haze implementation plan and 

submit a plan revision to EPA by July 

31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze 

regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the 

RAVI LTS regulations, MDEQ made a 

commitment to submit a report to EPA 

on progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I area located outside 

Mississippi which may be affected by 

emissions from within Mississippi. The 

progress report is required to be in the 

form of a SIP revision and is due every 

five years following the initial submittal 

of the regional haze SIP. Consistent with 

EPA’s monitoring regulations for RAVI 

and regional haze, Mississippi will rely 

on the IMPROVE network for 

compliance purposes, in addition to any 

RAVI monitoring that may be needed in 

the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4). Since there are no Class I 

areas in Mississippi, the State also 

commits to ongoing consultation with 

the FLMs throughout the 

implementation process, including 

annual discussion of the 

implementation process and the most 

recent IMPROVE monitoring data and 

VIEWS data. 

D. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Mississippi is the 

IMPROVE network. There are currently 

no IMPROVE sites in Mississippi, since 

it has no Class I areas. In the submittal, 

Mississippi states its intention to 

continue to consult with the FLM 

annually on monitoring data from the 

IMPROVE network for Class I areas in 

adjacent states that might be affected by 

Mississippi sources. 

Data produced by the IMPROVE 

monitoring network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web 

site has been maintained by VISTAS 

and the other RPOs to provide ready 

access to the IMPROVE data and data 

analysis tools. Mississippi is 

encouraging VISTAS and the other 

RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a 

similar data management system to 

facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data. 

E. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

In December 2006 and in May 2007, 

the State Air Directors from the VISTAS 

states held formal interstate 

consultation meetings. The purpose of 

the meetings was to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

FLM and EPA representatives to 

participate and to provide additional 

feedback. The Directors discussed the 

results of analyses showing 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from states to each of the Class I areas 

in the VISTAS region. 

Mississippi received letters from 

Louisiana and Alabama transmitting 

prehearing drafts of their regional haze 

SIPs. MDEQ concurred on the RPGs for 

the Breton and Sipsey Class I areas, and 

committed to continue collaboration 

with these states in the preparation of 

future VISTAS studies and analyses and 

in addressing regional haze issues in 

future implementation periods. EPA 

proposes to find that Mississippi has 

adequately addressed the consultation 

requirements in the RHR and 

appropriately documented its 

consultation with other states in its SIP 

submittal. 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

Through the VISTAS RPO, 

Mississippi and the nine other member 

states worked extensively with the 

FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture to develop 

technical analyses that support the 

regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS 

states. 

MDEQ received comments from the 

U.S. Forestry Service (USFS) and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

on the State’s draft regional haze SIP 

dated January 10, 2008. Appendix O of 

the September 22, 2008, Mississippi 

regional haze SIP submittal includes a 

summary of the comments from the 

FLMs. Most of the comments were 

requesting additional information or 

discussion on various topics which 

were taken into consideration and, for 

the most part, included in the final 

September 2008 SIP submittal. The 

FLMs provided comments about 

including in the SIP submittal 

discussions on natural background, 

uniform rate of progress, and RPGs for 

nearby Class I areas in other states. This 

information was not included because 

Mississippi believes that is not 

necessary or appropriate to present this 

information as part of the Mississippi 

regional haze SIP. 

On March 3, 2011, the USFWS also 

provided comments on the draft 

supplemental SIP submittal, including 

USFWS’ views on BART for MPC and 

its concerns that Louisiana’s 

methodology for prioritizing sources for 

potential reasonable progress control 

evaluation did not include Mississippi’s 

DuPont DeLisle facility. MDEQ 

considered these comments in making 

its final determinations. 

F. Periodic SIP revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

As also summarized in section IV.C of 

this action, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(g), MDEQ affirmed its 

commitment to submitting a progress 

report in the form of a SIP revision to 

EPA every five years following this 

initial submittal of the Mississippi 

regional haze SIP. The report will 

evaluate the progress made towards the 

RPGs for the mandatory Class I areas 

located outside Mississippi which may 

be affected by emissions from within 

Mississippi. Mississippi also offered 

recommendations for several technical 

improvements that, as funding allows, 

can support the State’s next LTS. 

If another state’s regional haze SIP 

identifies that Mississippi’s SIP needs to 

be supplemented or modified, and if, 

after appropriate consultation 

Mississippi agrees, today’s action may 

be revisited, or additional information 

and/or changes will be addressed in the 

five-year progress report SIP revision. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of revisions to the Mississippi SIP 

submitted by the State of Mississippi on 

September 22, 2008, and May 9, 2011, 

as meeting some of the applicable 

regional haze requirements as set forth 

in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA 

and in 40 CFR 51.300–308, as described 

previously in this action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11893 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of a flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

proposal does not include a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11894 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4661 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785–201041; FRL– 

9637–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; South 

Carolina; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of a revision to the South 

Carolina state implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on 

December 17, 2007, that addresses 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules 

that require states to prevent any future 

and remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (national parks and 

wilderness 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 a limited approval of this SIP 

revision to implement the regional haze 

requirements for South Carolina on the 

basis that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the South Carolina SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

rescind the Federal regulations 

previously approved into the South 

Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and 

November 24, 1987, and to rely on the 

provisions in South Carolina’s 

December 17, 2007, SIP submittal to 

meet the monitoring and long-term 

strategy (LTS) requirements for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (RAVI). EPA has previously 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

South Carolina regional haze SIP 

because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC 

Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, 

EPA is not proposing to take action in 

this rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2009–0785, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0785, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0785.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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 www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni or Sara Waterson, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. Sara 

Waterson can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9061 and by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS