Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11839 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

approving Maryland’s Regional Haze 

Plan does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4663 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0510; FRL–9640–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Louisiana; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a 

partial disapproval and a partial limited 

approval of a revision to the Louisiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Louisiana 

through the Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality (LDEQ) on June 

13, 2008, that addresses regional haze 

(RH) for the first implementation period. 

This revision was submitted to address 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act) and the EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing man-made 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. In a separate 

action, the EPA has previously proposed 

a limited disapproval of the Louisiana 

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 (DC Circuit) to the 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). In today’s action, the EPA is 

proposing a partial disapproval because 

of deficiencies in Louisiana’s regional 

haze SIP submittal that go beyond the 

issues addressed in the EPA’s proposed 

limited disapproval. The EPA is also 

proposing a partial limited approval of 

those elements of this SIP revision not 

addressed by our partial disapproval. 

The partial limited approval of the RH 

requirements for Louisiana is based on 

the conclusion that the revisions, as a 

whole, strengthen the Louisiana SIP. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 and part C of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0510, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R6AIR_LAHAZE@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–6762. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0510. 

Our 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 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means we 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 us 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, we recommend 

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 we cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

we may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11840 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Processing 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 (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ 

siproc.pdf. 

a fee of 15 cents per page for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at our 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal is also available 

for public inspection during official 

business hours, by appointment, at the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality, 602 N. Fifth Street in Baton 

Rouge, Louisiana. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

214–665–2164; fax number 214–665– 

6762; email address belk.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Content 

I. Executive Summary of Proposed Action 

II. What is the background for our proposed 

actions? 

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 regional 

haze sips? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

H. Coordination With Federal Land 

Managers 

IV. Our Analysis of Louisiana’s Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Identification of Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Visibility 

Conditions 

3. Natural Visibility Impairment 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Evaluation of Louisiana’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals 

D. Evaluation of Louisiana’s BART 

Analyses 

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

3. BART Determinations 

a. ConocoPhillips 

b. Rhodia 

c. Sid Richardson Carbon Company 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

1. Emissions Inventories 

a. Louisiana’s 2002 Emission Inventory 

b. Louisiana’s 2018 Emission Inventory 

2. Visibility Projection Modeling 

3. Sources of Visibility Impairment 

a. Sources of Visibility Impairment in the 

Breton Class I Area 

b. Louisiana’s Contribution to Visibility 

Impairment in Class I Areas Outside the 

State 

4. Consultation for Other States Class I 

Areas 

5. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy Factors 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution 

Programs 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

c. Emissions Limitations and Schedules of 

Compliance 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

f. Enforceability of Emissions Limitations 

and Control Measures 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due 

to Projected Changes 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze 

Requirements 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

H. Coordination With Federal Land 

Managers 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

J. Determination of the Adequacy of 

Existing Implementation Plan 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Executive Summary of Proposed 

Action 

The EPA is proposing a partial limited 

approval of Louisiana’s June 13, 2008, 

SIP revision addressing regional haze 

(RH) under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(3) because certain provisions of 

the revision strengthen the Louisiana 

(LA) SIP. The EPA is also proposing a 

partial disapproval of the LA RH SIP 

submittal because the submittal 

includes several deficient provisions. 

The deficiencies identified in today’s 

action go beyond those identified in the 

limited disapproval proposed on 

December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82219). 

Certain elements of the State’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

evaluations and determinations are not 

fully adequate to meet the federal 

requirements. Additionally, as a result 

of the deficiencies related to BART, the 

Long-Term Strategy (LTS) and 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) are 

not fully adequate to meet federal 

requirements. Finally, because visibility 

impacts from smoke are significant in 

Louisiana, we propose that Louisiana 

should finalize its Smoke Management 

Plan (SMP). The portions of the revision 

proposed for limited approval 

nevertheless represent an improvement 

over the current SIP, and make 

considerable progress in fulfilling the 

applicable CAA RH program 

requirements. This proposed 

rulemaking and the accompanying 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

explain the basis for EPA’s proposed 

partial limited approval and partial 

disapproval. 

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing 

guidance,1 a limited approval results in 

approval of portions of the SIP 

submittal, even though they are 

deficient and prevent EPA from granting 

a full approval of the SIP revision. In an 

earlier proposed action, EPA has 

proposed a limited disapproval of 

Louisiana’s RH SIP revision for not 

meeting all the applicable requirements 

of the CAA (76 FR 82219). In today’s 

proposed action, having concluded 

based on a careful review of the LA RH 

SIP revision that there are deficiencies 

in the SIP beyond those identified in the 

proposed limited disapproval of the LA 

RH SIP, we are proposing a partial 

disapproval of those additional 

deficiencies and a partial limited 

approval of the rest of the LA RH SIP. 

The partial limited approval proposes to 

give limited approval to those portions 

of the SIP that are not being 

disapproved in today’s action for their 

benefit in strengthening the SIP even 

though they do not fully meet regional 

haze requirements. 

Specifically, we are proposing to find 

that the following elements of the 

submittal fully satisfy federal 

requirements insofar as the elements do 

not rely on the sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

reductions from CAIR: The State’s 

identification of affected Class I areas; 

the establishment of baseline, natural 

and current visibility conditions, 

including the Uniform Rate of Progress 

(URP); coordination of reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

(RAVI) and RH requirements; the RH 

monitoring strategy and other SIP 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4); the State’s commitment to 

submit periodic RH SIP revisions and 

periodic progress reports describing 

progress towards the State’s RPGs; the 

State’s commitment to make a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

existing SIP at the time a progress report 

is submitted; and the State’s 

coordination with Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs). 

We are proposing to find that 

Louisiana’s RPGs meet some federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11841 

2 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

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 Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 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 Federal 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.’’ 

requirements, but also contain some 

deficiencies. We are proposing to find 

that the State’s RPGs are deficient given 

our proposed finding that certain of 

Louisiana’s BART determinations are 

not fully approvable. In general, the 

State followed the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1), but these goals do not 

reflect appropriate emissions reductions 

from BART. 

For LTS, we are proposing to find that 

the State’s LTS satisfies many of the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3); however, we are proposing 

to find that the submitted LTS is 

deficient because a portion of it relies 

on BART determinations that we are 

proposing to disapprove. Also, because 

visibility impacts from smoke are 

significant in Louisiana, we propose to 

find that that Louisiana should finalize 

its SMP. 

For the BART analyses for sources 

other than electric generating units 

(EGUs), we are proposing to find that 

the State’s identification of subject-toBART sources meets federal 

requirements in part, but that the state 

should have identified Mosaic Fertilizer 

as being subject to BART and made a 

BART determination for the source. 

This is discussed in more detail in 

section IV.D.2 of this action. We are also 

proposing to find that LDEQ’s BART 

determinations for Conoco Phillips, 

Rhodia, and Sid Richardson Carbon 

Black are not fully approvable. These 

BART determinations are discussed in 

more detail in section IV.D.3 of this 

action. 

As noted above, in an earlier 

proposed action, EPA proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Louisiana 

regional haze SIP. EPA’s proposed 

limited disapproval is based on 

deficiencies in the state’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the state’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. In the same 

December 30, 2011 notice, EPA 

proposed to find that the Transport 

Rule,2 a rule issued in 2011 to address 

the interstate transport of NOX and SO2

in the eastern United States would, like 

CAIR, provide for greater reasonable 

progress towards the national goal than 

would BART. 76 FR 82219. Based on 

this proposed finding, EPA also 

proposed to revise the Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) to allow states to substitute 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule for sourcespecific BART. This proposed revision 

applies only to EGUs in the states in the 

Transport Rule region and only to the 

pollutants subject to the requirements of 

the Transport Rule. States such as 

Louisiana that are subject to the 

requirements of the Transport Rule 

trading program only for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) must still address BART for EGUs 

for SO2 and other visibility impairing 

pollutants. See, 76 FR at 82224. 

Consequently, while we proposed on 

December 30, 2011 to issue a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) to address 

the deficiencies in Louisiana’s SIP 

associated with the BART requirements 

for NOX for EGUs, we did not propose 

a plan to address the deficiencies 

associated with the BART requirements 

for SO2. The docket for this earlier EPA 

proposed limited disapproval of 

Louisiana’s regional haze SIP may be 

found at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0729. 

Louisiana also relied on CAIR in 

assessing the need for emissions 

reductions from EGUs to ensure 

reasonable progress. Consequently, 

Louisiana will have to reconsider 

whether reductions of SO2 from EGUs, 

whether subject to BART or not, are 

appropriate for ensuring reasonable 

progress. 

Where a submittal addresses a 

mandatory requirement of the CAA, we 

must, within 24 months following a 

final disapproval, either approve a SIP 

or promulgate a FIP. CAA section 

110(c)(1). At this time, we are not 

proposing a FIP for the portions of the 

Louisiana RH SIP we are proposing in 

this action to find deficient because 

LDEQ has expressed its intent to revise 

the Louisiana RH SIP by correcting the 

deficiencies. We are electing to not 

propose a FIP at this time in order to 

provide Louisiana time to correct these 

deficiencies. However, a final partial 

disapproval of Louisiana’s RH SIP will 

start the two-year mandatory FIP clock. 

If the State submits an approvable rule 

revision during the FIP clock period, 

final approval of the rule revision 

correcting the deficiencies will 

terminate the FIP clock. 

II. What is the background for our 

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 particulate matter (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 (VOCs)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter that 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 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11842 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

7 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_

envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘our 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’); and Guidance 

for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 

Rule, (EPA–454/B–03–004, September 2003, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred 

to as our ‘‘2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. The 

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. The 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 the 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 proposal. 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 RH 

program will require long-term regional 

coordination among states, tribal 

governments and various federal 

agencies. As noted above, pollution 

affecting the air quality in Class I areas 

can be transported over long distances, 

even hundreds of kilometers (km). 

Therefore, to address effectively 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 RH 

can originate from sources located 

across broad geographic areas, we have 

encouraged the states and tribes across 

the United States (U.S.) to address 

visibility impairment from a regional 

perspective. Five regional planning 

organizations (RPOs) were developed to 

address RH and related issues. The 

RPOs first evaluated technical 

information to better understand how 

their states and tribes impact Class I 

areas across the country, and then 

pursued the development of regional 

strategies to reduce emissions of 

particulate matter and other pollutants 

leading to RH. 

The Central Regional Air Planning 

Association (CENRAP) is an 

organization of states, tribes, federal 

agencies and other interested parties 

that identifies RH and visibility issues 

and develops strategies to address them. 

The CENRAP is one of the five RPOs 

across the U.S. and includes the states 

and tribal areas of Nebraska, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, 

Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

The following is a summary and basic 

explanation of the regulations covered 

under the RHR. See, 40 CFR 51.308 for 

a complete listing of the regulations 

under which this SIP is being evaluated. 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

RH SIPs must assure reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Class I areas. Section 169A of the 

CAA and our 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 RH 

SIP requirements are discussed in 

further detail in this section. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. See, 70 FR 39104. 

This visibility metric expresses uniform 

changes in the degree of haze in terms 

of common increments across the entire 

range of visibility conditions, from 

pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 

Visibility is sometimes expressed in 

terms of the visual range, which is the 

greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, 

at which a dark object can just be 

distinguished against the sky. The 

deciview is a useful measure for 

tracking progress in improving 

visibility, because each deciview change 

is an equal incremental change in 

visibility perceived by the human eye. 

Most people can detect a change in 

visibility of 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 RH SIPs must contain 

measures that ensure ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward the national goal of 

preventing and remedying visibility 

impairment in Class I areas caused by 

man-made air pollution by reducing 

anthropogenic emissions that cause RH. 

The national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., man-made 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 

RH SIP submittal and periodically 

review progress every five years, 

midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. We have provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions.7

For the first RH 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11843 

8 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

under the Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, 

memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 

(pp. 4–2, 5–1). 

9The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

10 In American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 

F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002), the U.S Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling 

vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the 

regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART 

guidelines to address the court’s ruling in that case. 

See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

11BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place 

between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and 

whose operations fall within one or more of 26 

specifically listed source categories. 

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 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of RH 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. See, 70 FR 

3915; See also 64 FR 35714. 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. Id. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in our 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 our Reasonable Progress 

Guidance.8 In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (the URP) and the 

emission reduction measures needed to 

achieve that rate of progress over the 

10-year period of the SIP. Uniform 

progress towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress, which states are to 

use for analytical comparison to the 

amount of progress they expect to 

achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with 

one or more Class I areas (‘‘Class I 

State’’) must also consult with 

potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., 

other nearby states with emission 

sources that may be affecting visibility 

impairment at the Class I State’s areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources 

with the potential to emit greater than 

250 tons per year (tpy) or more of any 

visibility impairing pollutant in order to 

address visibility impacts from these 

sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act 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 9 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’, as determined by the state 

or us in the case of a plan promulgated 

under section 110(c) of the CAA. Under 

the RHR, states are directed to conduct 

BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ 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. 

We promulgated regulations 

addressing RH in 1999, 64 FR 35714 

(July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 

51, subpart P.10 These regulations 

require all states to submit 

implementation plans that, among other 

measures, contain either emission limits 

representing BART for certain sources 

constructed between 1962 and 1977, or 

alternative measures that provide for 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

40 CFR 51.308(e). 

On July 6, 2005, we published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. 70 FR 39104. 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; however, all subject to BART 

sources are required to comply with the 

five BART factors (or steps) (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)). 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: First, 

states identify those sources that meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; 11 second, 

states determine whether each 

identified source ‘‘emits any air 

pollutant which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any such 

area’’ (a source that fits this description 

is ‘‘subject to BART,’’) and; third, for 

each source subject to BART, states then 

identify the appropriate type and the 

level of control for reducing emissions. 

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. We 

have stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or ammonia 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. States have three options 

for exempting a BART-eligible source 

from the BART requirements, including 

dispersion modeling demonstrating that 

the source cannot reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in a Class I area, 

use of model plants to exempt sources 

with common characteristics, and 

cumulative modeling to show that no 

sources in Louisiana are subject to 

BART. Any source with emissions that 

model above the threshold value would 

be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines 

acknowledge varying circumstances 

affecting different Class I areas. States 

should consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Any 

exemption threshold set by the state 

should not be higher than 0.5 dv. See 

also, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, 

section III.A.1. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. 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. See, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). 

A RH SIP must include sourcespecific BART emission limits and 

compliance schedules for each source 

subject to BART (See, CAA section 

169A(b)(2), 40 CFR 51.308(e), and 64 FR 

35714, 35741). 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 our 

approval of the RH SIP. CAA section 

169(g)(4) and 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. See, CAA 

section 110(a). 

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 RH program, the EPA made 

just such a demonstration for the CAIR. 

See, 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). The 

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 the 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. The CAIR 

required controls of both SO2 and NOX

in Louisiana. Challenges to the CAIR, 

however, resulted in the remand of the 

rule to the EPA. See, North Carolina v. 

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

EPA issued the Transport Rule in 2011 

to address the interstate transport of 

NOX and SO2 in the eastern United 

States. See, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). On December 30, 2011, the 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. 76 FR 82219. 

Based on this proposed finding, the 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. The 

transport rule requires control of NOX

during the ozone season in Louisiana. It 

does not, however, require control of 

SO2. The EPA has not taken final action 

on that rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their RH SIP a 10- to 15-year 

strategy for making reasonable progress, 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 

that states include a LTS in their RH 

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 any 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within, or affected by emissions 

from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a state with a 

Class I area impacted by emissions from 

another state must consult with such 

contributing state, (id.) and must also 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

SIP all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of emission reductions needed to 

meet the reasonable progress goals for 

the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). The 

RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

As part of the RHR, we 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 RH 

visibility impairment, which was due 

December 17, 2007, in accordance with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11845 

12 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA– 

454/B–03–005, September 2003. 

13As this is the first RH SIP submittal, the 

calculated baseline visibility condition and the 

current visibility condition will be the same. We 

expect that subsequent RH SIP submittals will 

reflect different calculated numbers for baseline and 

current visibility conditions due to the change in 

conditions. 

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 RH, and the state must submit the 

first such coordinated LTS with its first 

RH SIP. Future coordinated LTS 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 (g), respectively. The 

periodic review of a state’s LTS must 

report on both RH and RAVI and must 

be submitted to us as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of RH 

visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

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 

RH 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 RH 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 RH 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 40 CFR 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to RH SIPs that 

address the first implementation period. 

See, 40 CFR 51.308(f). Facilities subject 

to BART must continue to comply with 

the BART provisions of 40 CFR 

51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP 

revisions will assure that the statutory 

requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

H. Coordination With Federal Land 

Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. Our Analysis of Louisiana’s 

Regional Haze SIP 

A. Identification of Affected Class I 

Areas 

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d) of 

the RHR, the State of Louisiana has 

identified one Class I area within its 

borders, Breton National Wilderness 

Area (Breton NWA, or Breton). Part of 

a long chain of barrier islands, the area 

comprises a small part of the Breton 

National Wildlife Refuge located in the 

Breton Sound off the southeast coast of 

Louisiana. Breton NWA was identified 

by the LDEQ in its SIP. The FLM for 

Breton NWA is the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) a bureau 

within the U.S. Department of Interior. 

The Louisiana RH SIP establishes RPGs 

for Breton and a LTS to achieve these 

goals within the first RH 

implementation period ending in 2018. 

In developing its SIP, the LDEQ also 

considered whether Louisiana 

emissions from Louisiana sources 

impact visibility at Class I areas outside 

of the state and determined that 

Louisiana emissions do not cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas outside the State. Class I 

areas outside of Louisiana that were 

considered by the LDEQ included the 

14,460 acre Caney Creek Wilderness 

Area in southwest Arkansas. In other 

parts of its SIP, the LDEQ does examine 

the impact of Louisiana’s emissions on 

the visibility at other Class I areas as 

well. 

We propose to find that the LDEQ 

correctly identified the Breton Class I 

area in Louisiana, and other Class I 

areas outside of its borders that may be 

impacted by emissions from Louisiana 

sources. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the RHR and in accordance with the 

EPA’s Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, (‘‘Visibility Guidance’’),12

the LDEQ calculated baseline/current13

and natural visibility conditions for 

Breton NWA on the most impaired and 

least impaired days, as summarized 

below (and further described in the 

TSD). 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in the Visibility Guidance, is 

estimated by calculating the expected 

light extinction using default estimates 

of natural concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including the EPA and FLMs) and 

RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was 

established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal 

and State implementation plans for the protection 

of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives 

of IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and 

emission sources responsible for existing 

anthropogenic visibility impairment. The IMPROVE 

program has also been a key participant in 

visibility-related research, including the 

advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

15The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is discussed in Chapter 5 and Appendix 

B of the LDEQ’s TSD for the Louisiana RH SIP and 

in numerous published papers. See for example: 

Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the 

IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light 

Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. 

Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State 

University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, available at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 

Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New 

IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

16The amount of light lost as it travels over one 

million meters. The haze index, in units of 

deciviews (dv), is calculated directly from the total 

light extinction, bext expressed in inverse 

megameters (Mm¥1), as follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10). 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in the Visibility 

Guidance, the EPA allows states to use 

‘‘refined’’ or alternative approaches to 

the Visibility Guidance to estimate the 

values that characterize the natural 

visibility conditions of Class I areas. 

One alternative approach is to develop 

and justify the use of alternative 

estimates of natural concentrations of 

fine particle components. Another 

alternative is to use the ‘‘new IMPROVE 

equation’’ that was adopted for use by 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee in 

December 2005.14 The purpose of this 

refinement to the ‘‘old IMPROVE 

equation’’ is to provide more accurate 

estimates of the various factors that 

affect the calculation of light extinction. 

The LDEQ opted to use the new 

IMPROVE equation to calculate the 

‘‘refined’’ natural visibility conditions. 

For Breton NWA, the LDEQ used the 

new IMPROVE equation to calculate the 

‘‘refined’’ natural visibility value for the 

20 percent worst days to be 11.93 

deciviews and for the 20 percent best 

days to be 4.25 deciviews. We reviewed 

the LDEQ’s estimates of the natural 

visibility conditions for Breton NWA 

and are proposing to find them 

acceptable using the new IMPROVE 

equation. 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 15 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate 

(SO4), nitrate (NO3), and organic carbon. 

It also adjusts the mass multiplier for 

organic carbon (particulate organic 

matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. 

New terms are added to the equation to 

account for light extinction by sea salt 

and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen 

dioxide. Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

2. Estimating Baseline Visibility 

Conditions 

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the RHR and in accordance with the 

Visibility Guidance, the LDEQ 

calculated baseline visibility conditions 

for Breton NWA. The baseline condition 

calculation begins with the calculation 

of light extinction, using the IMPROVE 

equation. The IMPROVE equation sums 

the light extinction16 resulting from 

individual pollutants, such as sulfates 

and nitrates. As with the natural 

visibility conditions calculation, the 

LDEQ chose to use the new IMPROVE 

equation. 

The period for establishing baseline 

visibility conditions is 2000–2004, and 

baseline conditions must be calculated 

using available monitoring data. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2). The Breton IMPROVE 

monitor did not meet the data capture 

requirements of the RHR for the 2000– 

2004 monitoring period; however, data 

from a nearby monitoring site, the 

Gulfport SEARCH site, was used to 

supplement the Breton monitoring data. 

We found the use of this data to be 

acceptable. The Breton monitor was 

subsequently destroyed in 2005 by 

Hurricane Katrina and since replaced 

and relocated. The LDEQ calculated the 

baseline conditions at the Breton Class 

I area as 25.73 deciviews on the 20 

percent worst days, and 13.12 deciviews 

on the 20 percent best days. We have 

reviewed the LDEQ’s estimation of 

baseline visibility conditions at Breton 

and are proposing to find these 

estimates acceptable. 

3. Natural Visibility Impairment 

To address 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), the LDEQ also 

calculated the number of deciviews by 

which baseline conditions exceed 

natural visibility conditions for the best 

and worst days at Breton NWA. For the 

20 percent worst days, the LDEQ 

calculated the number of deciviews by 

which baseline conditions exceed 

natural visibility conditions to be 13.80 

dv (baseline of 25.73 dv, minus natural 

conditions of 11.93 dv). For the 20 

percent best days at Breton, the baseline 

conditions exceed natural visibility 

conditions by 8.87 dv (baseline of 13.12 

dv, minus natural conditions of 4.25 

dv). We have reviewed the LDEQ’s 

estimates of the natural visibility 

impairment at Breton NWA and are 

proposing to find these estimates 

acceptable. 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, the LDEQ 

analyzed and determined the URP 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by the year 2064. In so doing, 

the LDEQ compared the baseline 

visibility conditions to the natural 

visibility conditions in Breton NWA and 

determined the URP needed in order to 

attain natural visibility conditions by 

2064. The LDEQ constructed the URP 

consistent with the requirements of the 

RHR and our 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance by plotting a straight 

graphical line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to 

the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for Breton NWA. 

Using a baseline visibility value of 

25.73 dv and a ‘‘refined’’ natural 

visibility value of 11.93 dv for the 20 

percent worst days for Breton, the LDEQ 

calculated the URP to be approximately 

0.23 dv per year. This results in a total 

reduction of 13.80 dv that are necessary 

to reach the natural visibility condition 

of 11.93 dv in 2064 for Breton NWA. 

The URP results in a visibility 

improvement of 3.22 dv for Breton for 

the period covered by this SIP revision 

submittal (up to and including 2018). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF UNIFORM

RATE OF PROGRESS

Visibility metric Breton NWA 

Baseline Conditions .. 25.73 dv. 

Natural Visibility ........ 11.93 dv. 

Total Improvement by 

2064.

13.80 dv. 

Improvement for this 

SIP by 2018.

3.22 dv. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11847 

17Because the Transport Rule will result in 

greater emission reductions overall than the CAIR, 

the EPA did not include the RPGs set by affected 

states in its December 30, 2011 limited disapproval 

(Transport Better than BART proposal, December 

30, 2011, 76 FR 82219). 

18The TSD for CENRAP Emissions and Air 

Quality Modeling to Support RH State 

Implementation is found in Appendix B of the 

Louisiana RH SIP. 

19See the LA RH SIP submittal, Chapter 8, 

Section 8.5, Figure 8.2. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF UNIFORM

RATE OF PROGRESS—Continued 

Visibility metric Breton NWA 

Uniform Rate of 

Progress.

0.23 dv/yr. 

We are proposing to find that LDEQ 

has appropriately calculated the URP 

and has satisfied the requirement in 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). 

C. Evaluation of Louisiana’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals 

We are proposing to find that 

Louisiana’s RPGs meet some federal 

requirements, but also contain some 

deficiencies. This section discusses 

three RPG requirements as they relate to 

the LA RH SIP: (1) Establishment of the 

RPG; (2) reasonable progress four factor 

analysis; and (3) reasonable progress 

consultation. See the TSD for a more 

detailed discussion of RPG requirements 

and the LA RH SIP for RPGs. The 

establishment of RPGs and the 

reasonable progress four factor analysis 

for Louisiana are linked to the EPA’s 

CAIR and the Transport Rule. As 

discussed in the Executive Summary 

above, in an earlier proposed action the 

EPA proposed a limited disapproval of 

the LA RH SIP (76 FR 82219). As 

discussed in that proposal, a number of 

states, including Louisiana, fully 

consistent with the EPA’s regulations at 

the time, relied on the trading programs 

of the CAIR to satisfy the BART 

requirement and the requirement for a 

long-term strategy sufficient to achieve 

the state-adopted reasonable progress 

goals. Louisiana also relied on the CAIR 

in assessing the need for emissions 

reductions from EGUs to ensure 

reasonable progress. As a result, 

Louisiana will have to consider whether 

EGUs previously covered by the CAIR, 

whether subject to BART or not, should 

be controlled to ensure reasonable 

progress.17

We are proposing to find that the 

State’s RPGs are deficient given our 

proposed finding, discussed in section 

IV.D. below, that certain of Louisiana’s 

BART determinations are not fully 

approvable. In general, the State 

followed the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1), but these goals do not 

reflect appropriate emissions reductions 

from BART. 

Establishment of the Reasonable 

Progress Goals 

The LDEQ adopted the CENRAP 

modeled 2018 visibility conditions as 

the RPGs for Breton NWA Class I area. 

The LDEQ established a RPG of 22.51 dv 

for Breton for 2018 for the 20% worst 

days. This represents a 3.22 dv 

improvement over a baseline of 25.73 

dv. 

The CENRAP’s projections for 2018 

for the 20% worst and best days for 

Breton, which Louisiana used in 

developing its RPGs for Breton, are 

shown in the LA RH SIP Appendix B 

titled, ‘‘Technical Support Document for 

CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality 

Modeling to Support Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plans.’’ 18 A 

comparison of the LDEQ’s predicted rate 

of progress to the glide path on the 20% 

worst days shows that, with projected 

control of Louisiana sources, Louisiana 

will be very close to the glide path 

throughout the first planning period.19

The CENRAP modeling shows that for 

the 20% best days, there would be a 

0.90 dv improvement in visibility from 

the baseline for Breton. See, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). 

LDEQ’s Reasonable Progress ‘‘Four 

Factor’’ Analysis 

In establishing RPGs for a Class I area, 

the State is required by CAA 

§ 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to ‘‘[c]onsider the 

costs of compliance, the time necessary 

for compliance, the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, and the remaining useful 

life of any potentially affected sources, 

and include a demonstration showing 

how these factors were taken into 

consideration in selecting the goal.’’ In 

addition to this explicit statutory 

requirement, the RHR also establishes 

an analytical requirement to ensure that 

each state considers carefully the suite 

of emission reduction measures 

necessary to attain the URP. The RHR 

provides that the EPA will consider 

both the state’s consideration of the four 

factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and 

its analysis of the URP ‘‘[i]n determining 

whether the State’s goal for visibility 

improvement provides for reasonable 

progress.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii). As 

explained in the preamble to the RHR, 

the URP analysis was adopted to ensure 

that states use a common analytical 

framework and to ensure an informed 

and equitable decision making process 

to ensure a transparent process that 

would, among other things, ensure that 

the public would be provided with the 

information necessary to understand the 

emission reductions needed, the costs of 

such measures, and other factors 

associated with improvements in 

visibility. 64 FR at 35733. 

In establishing its RPGs for 2018 for 

the 20% worst days, the LDEQ relied on 

the improvements in visibility that were 

anticipated to result from federal, State, 

and local control programs that were 

either currently in effect or with 

mandated future-year emission 

reduction schedules that predate 2018, 

including BART emission limitations 

projected by the LDEQ. Based on the 

emissions reductions from these 

measures, the CENRAP modeled the 

projected visibility conditions 

anticipated at each Class I area in the 

region in 2018, and the LDEQ used 

these results to establish RPGs. 

States do have discretion in setting 

RPGs, but are required to do more than 

establish RPGs that meet or exceed the 

URP. The LDEQ did provide an analysis 

that considered the four statutory factors 

under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to 

evaluate the potential of controlling 

certain sources or source categories for 

addressing visibility impacts from manmade sources within its borders. 

The LDEQ provides an analysis in 

Appendix H, CENRAP Regional Control 

Strategy Analysis Plan, showing that the 

URP goals are reasonable. In addition, 

the LDEQ provided a discussion of the 

four factors required for this analysis: 

costs of compliance, time for 

compliance, energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

and remaining useful life of any 

potentially affected sources in Chapter 

10 of the RH SIP. 

In identifying and prioritizing 

potential regional haze control 

strategies, the LDEQ referenced the 

Alpine Geophysics report for the 

CENRAP. Table 7–4 of this report 

outlines potential facilities that could be 

considered when developing a 

subregional SO2 control strategy with 

the associated approximate costs (see 

the LA RH SIP Appendix H). TSD Table 

4 shows the facilities in Louisiana 

identified in the Alpine report that 

potentially significantly impact 

visibility at Breton for which controls 

may be available. The LDEQ found that 

significant reductions would be 

achieved from consent decrees and the 

CAIR, and further examined the sources 

in Louisiana identified in the Alpine 

report for potential reductions. More 

information about the state’s discussion 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

20The ‘‘model plant’’ approach can be used to 

determine whether a category of sources that share 

specific characteristics should be exempted from 

BART because these sources are not anticipated to 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a 

Class I area. See 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.III. 

is available in section IV.C of the TSD 

and in the LA RH SIP submittal. 

Reasonable Progress Consultation 

The LDEQ worked with the Visibility 

Improvement—States and Tribal 

Associations of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

and the CENRAP states to jointly 

develop the consultation strategy. The 

LDEQ used the CENRAP as the main 

vehicle for facilitating collaboration 

with FLMs and other states in 

developing its RH SIP. The LDEQ was 

able to use the CENRAP generated 

products, such as regional 

photochemical modeling results and 

visibility projections, and source 

apportionment modeling to assist in 

identifying neighboring states’ 

contributions to the visibility 

impairment at Breton NWA. 

The LDEQ determined that in 

addition to Louisiana, the following 

states make a contribution to decreased 

visibility in Louisiana’s Class I area: 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (see 

Table 5 of the TSD for this proposal). 

The LDEQ conducted consultations in 

the form of face-to-face meetings and 

conference calls. Participants in the 

consultation process included states and 

tribes, the CENRAP and other RPOs, the 

EPA, and FLMs. The participating states 

determined that regional modeling and 

other findings based on existing and 

proposed controls arising from local, 

state, and federal requirements 

indicated that the Class I area in 

Louisiana is expected to meet the rate of 

progress goals for the first 

implementation period ending in 2018. 

The LDEQ determined that additional 

emissions reductions from other states 

were not necessary to address visibility 

impairment at Breton for the first 

implementation period ending in 2018, 

and all states participating in its 

consultations agreed with this. 

D. Evaluation of Louisiana’s BART 

Analyses 

BART is an element of Louisiana’s 

LTS for the first implementation period. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

III.D of this proposal, the BART 

evaluation process consists of three 

components: (1) An identification of all 

the BART-eligible sources; (2) an 

assessment of whether those BARTeligible sources are subject to BART; 

and (3) a determination of any BART 

controls. The LDEQ addressed these 

steps as follows: 

1. Identification of BART-Eligible 

Sources 

An initial step of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the state’s boundaries. 

The LDEQ identified the BART-eligible 

sources in Louisiana by utilizing the 

three eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and our 

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

more emission units at the facility fit 

within one of the 26 categories listed in 

the BART Guidelines; (2) the emission 

unit(s) began operation on or after 

August 6, 1962, and was in existence on 

August 6, 1977; and (3) potential 

emissions of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant from subject units are 250 tpy 

or more. 

The LDEQ determined that the 

visibility-impairing pollutants in 

Louisiana include SO2, NOX, and PM, 

using PM less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10) as an indicator for PM 

(LA RH SIP, Chapter 9, p. 36). This is 

consistent with the RHR (40 CFR 51 

Appendix Y, III.A.2). See the TSD for 

more information. 

The LDEQ sent a letter and survey 

form, together with guidance materials, 

requesting information about BART 

eligibility to every reporter (1167 

facilities) to the emissions inventory for 

the state requesting information about 

BART eligibility. Of the 1167 facilities 

contacted, 1165 facilities responded, 

and reported 76 BART-eligible facilities. 

Of the two non-responders, one was 

found to be out of business, and the 

other was determined to have minor 

emissions. See the TSD for more 

information. Each of the 76 BARTeligible facilities is identified in Table 6 

of the TSD. We agree with the LDEQ’s 

identification of BART-eligible sources. 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

The next step of the BART evaluation 

is to identify those BART-eligible 

sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

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 

in a Class I area. Following the 

identification of those sources that were 

determined to be BART eligible, the 

LDEQ performed a combination 

approach to determine whether BARTeligible sources would cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Breton. The LDEQ used a combination 

of an individual source attribution 

approach (dispersion modeling), and, 

for sources with common 

characteristics, a model plant 

approach.20 Please see the TSD and 

Appendix A of the TSD for more details 

regarding how sources were exempted 

from BART by the LDEQ and our 

analysis of this modeling. 

Louisiana considered each of the 76 

BART-eligible facilities described earlier 

using the modeling methodologies 

described below. 

Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines direct states to 

address SO2, NOX, and PM emissions as 

visibility-impairing pollutants, and 

states must exercise their ‘‘best 

judgment to determine whether 

ammonia or VOC emissions from a 

source are likely to have an impact on 

visibility in an area.’’ See, 70 FR 39162. 

As noted above, the LDEQ determined 

that the visibility-impairing pollutants 

in Louisiana are SO2, NOX, and 

particulate matter. Louisiana decided to 

not consider VOCs and ammonia among 

visibility-impairing pollutants for 

several reasons, as discussed in the 

TSD. We propose to accept the State’s 

decision to address only SO2, NOX, and 

PM as the visibility impairing 

pollutants. 

Consistent with BART Guidelines, the 

LDEQ used the CALPUFF modeling 

system to determine whether individual 

sources identified as BART-eligible 

were subject to or exempt from BART. 

For this modeling, Louisiana considered 

76 BART-eligible facilities, as discussed 

in section IV.D.1. Based on this analysis, 

Louisiana identified 27 facilities for 

further consideration due to visibility 

impact above a 0.5 dv contribution 

threshold. These facilities are discussed 

in the next section of this action and are 

identified in Table 7 of the TSD. We are 

proposing to find the LDEQ’s chosen 

modeling methodology and screening 

approach are acceptable. 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that an important 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.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161. The 

BART Guidelines also state that ‘‘the 

appropriate threshold for determining 

whether a source contributes to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11849 

21The LDEQ provided screening modeling results 

for all sources identified as BART-eligible; see 

Appendix E of the LA RH SIP submission. 

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.’’ Id. Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, states should 

‘‘consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts.’’ 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. 

Considering the number of sources 

affecting Louisiana’s Class I area and the 

magnitude of each source’s impact, the 

LDEQ used a contribution threshold of 

0.5 dv for determining which sources 

are subject to BART. We propose to 

accept the State’s selection of 0.5 dv as 

the threshold value. 

For the 27 facilities referenced above, 

Louisiana requested that the facilities 

provide additional modeling: Screening 

Modeling and, for sources that failed the 

Screening Modeling, Refined Modeling. 

Those facilities that the LDEQ requested 

to conduct this additional modeling and 

the results of the individual Screening 

and Refined Modeling analyses for each 

of these sources are shown in Table 7 

of the TSD.21 Our evaluation of these 

modeling results showed that there was 

one facility, Mosaic Fertilizer Uncle 

Sam Plant (Mosaic), which had modeled 

visibility impacts that exceeded the 0.5 

dv contribution threshold, but which 

the LDEQ determined was not subject to 

BART. At the time of the submittal, the 

LDEQ’s modeling showed that, using 

then-current permit maximum hourly 

emission rates, Mosaic had an operating 

emissions rate of 2,250 lbs/hr 

(maximum) and a significant modeled 

visibility impact at Breton of over 0.5 

dv. At that time, Mosaic was reviewing 

possibilities for future control strategies 

on the A-Train Sulfuric Acid Stack that 

could be expected to reduce SO2

emissions for the facility. For purposes 

of performing a refined modeling 

analysis and exempting the source from 

BART requirements, Mosaic considered 

potential future emission rates based on 

future controls, and used a modeling 

data input of 258.3 lbs/hr (maximum). 

Although future controls were being 

considered, they were not yet in place. 

The RHR states that a source can be 

exempted if its visibility impacts at the 

time the SIP is developed are less than 

the screening value. See, 70 FR 39118. 

Because Mosaic’s impacts were greater 

than the screening value, at that time, 

the LDEQ should have completed a full 

five factor analysis to assure the 

appropriate BART level of control was 

implemented (as discussed in section 

IV.D.3). Therefore, we propose to find 

that the LDEQ erred in exempting the 

Mosaic facility from BART. For those 

facilities for which Screening and 

Refined Modeling was provided, with 

the exception of Mosaic, we propose to 

approve the modeling in the LA RH SIP 

submittal that identifies which sources 

are exempt from BART. 

Sources Subject to BART 

The sources that were not exempt 

from the BART requirements via 

dispersion modeling analyses and/or the 

use of model plants are subject to BART. 

For sources subject to BART in 

Louisiana, the LDEQ must make a 

determination of BART. The LDEQ 

identified three sources as subject to 

BART and we identified one more, 

Mosaic, as discussed previously in this 

proposal. All four of these sources are 

shown in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—NON-EGU SOURCES IN LOUISIANA SUBJECT TO BART 

Facility name BART emission units Source category Pollutants 

evaluated 

ConocoPhillips Co. Alliance Refinery ....... Various emission points in facility ........... Petroleum Refinery .................................. SO2

NOX

PM10

Rhodia, Inc ................................................ Sulfuric Acid Units 1 and 2 ...................... Sulfuric Acid ............................................. SO2

Sid Richardson Carbon Company ............ Units 1, 2, and 3 flares and dryers 2, 3 

and 4.

Carbon Black ........................................... SO2

Mosaic Fertilizer Uncle Sam Plant * .......... Various emission points in facility * ......... Chemical Process Facility * ..................... None * 

* This facility was identified by EPA as subject to BART. 

Louisiana did not submit sourcespecific BART evaluations for EGUs in 

its analysis because the state chose to 

meet BART requirements for EGUs for 

SO2 and NOX by participation in the 

CAIR, and because modeling results 

showed that the PM emissions from 

EGUs did not warrant further control. 

This is discussed further in the next 

section. 

3. BART Determinations 

The next component of a BART 

evaluation is to perform the BART 

analysis. BART is a source-specific 

control determination, based on 

consideration of several factors set out 

in section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA. These 

factors include the costs of compliance 

and the degree of improvement in 

visibility associated with the use of 

possible control technologies. The EPA 

issued BART Guidelines (Appendix Y to 

Part 51) in 2005 to clarify the BART 

provisions based on the statutory and 

regulatory BART requirements (70 FR 

39164). The BART Guidelines describe 

the BART analysis as consisting of the 

following five basic steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies, 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options, 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies, 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results, and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

We note the BART Guidelines provide 

that states must follow the guidelines in 

making BART determinations on a 

source-by-source basis for 750 MW 

power plants but are not required to use 

the process in the guidelines when 

making BART determinations for other 

types of sources. States with subject-toBART units with a generating capacity 

less than 750 MW are strongly 

encouraged to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations, but they are not 

required to do so. However, the 

requirement to perform a BART analysis 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11850 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22Civil Action No. H–05–0285. A copy of this CD 

is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 23The EPA recently finalized action approving 

New Jersey’s BART determinations for the 

ConocoPhillips Bayway Refinery, which is subject 

to the same CD as the ConocoPhillips Alliance 

Refinery. See http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ 

resources/cases/civil/caa/conocophillips.html. The 

proposal for that action explains that the EPA’s 

approval is based on New Jersey’s submittal of a 

complete BART evaluation for the subject-to BART 

units at the facility, and the fact that these units will 

be controlled ‘‘based on maximum feasible controls 

or a multi-factor analysis.’’ 76 FR 49711, at 49721; 

see also, 77 FR 19–01. The TSD for that action 

describes how New Jersey’s submittal included the 

BART analysis for NOX, SO2, and PM for the 

subject-to-BART units at this source in compliance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). TSD, pages 27–29, 

available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

number EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0607. 

24The CAA requires RH SIPs to ‘‘to contain such 

emission limits * * * necessary to make reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national goal. * * *’’ 

CAA 169A(b)(2). The federal regulations further 

explain that the state must ‘‘submit an 

implementation plan containing emission limits 

representing BART and schedules for compliance 

with BART for each BART-eligible source that may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to 

any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class 

I Federal area.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(e). Finally, the 

preamble to the RHR states that ‘‘[t]he SIP revision 

must include the emission limitations determined 

to be BART for sources subject to BART. * * *’’ 64 

FR 35714, at 35741. 

25 ‘‘Consistent with the CAA and the 

implementing regulations, States can adopt a more 

streamlined approach to making BART 

determinations where appropriate. Although BART 

determinations are based on the totality of 

circumstances in a given situation, such as the 

distance of the source from a Class I area, the type 

and amount of pollutant at issue, and the 

availability and cost of controls, it is clear that in 

some situations, one or more factors will clearly 

suggest an outcome. Thus, for example, a State need 

not undertake an exhaustive analysis of a source’s 

impact on visibility resulting from relatively minor 

emissions of a pollutant where it is clear that 

controls would be costly and any improvements in 

visibility resulting from reductions in emissions of 

that pollutant would be negligible. In a scenario, for 

example, where a source emits thousands of tons 

of SO2 but less than one hundred tons of NOX, the 

State could easily conclude that requiring 

expensive controls to reduce NOX would not be 

appropriate. In another situation, however, 

inexpensive NOX controls might be available and a 

State might reasonably conclude that NOX controls 

were justified as a means to improve visibility 

despite the fact that the source emits less than one 

hundred tons of the pollutant.’’ 70 FR 39116. 

26We note it is possible for a source to have been 

constructed prior to the BART eligibility timeframe 

of August 7, 1962 to August 7, 1977, but to have 

been reconstructed during that timeframe and thus 

still BART-eligible. 70 FR 39159–60. 

that considers ‘‘the technology 

available, the costs of compliance, the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

any pollution control equipment in use 

at the source, the remaining useful life 

of the source, and the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology,’’ is found in 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) and the RHR, 

and applies to all subject-to-BART 

sources. 

For three facilities, ConocoPhillips 

Co., Rhodia Inc., and Sid Richardson 

Carbon Company, the LDEQ submitted 

a BART analysis under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). For each of these 

facilities, we propose to find that the 

BART analysis satisfies part of the 

requirements, but does not satisfy all of 

the requirements. A summary of our 

proposed findings for these facilities is 

provided below. For more details, 

please see our evaluation of the BART 

determination for each subject-to-BART 

unit, in the TSD. 

As previously discussed, we are 

proposing to find that the state should 

have identified Mosaic as being subject 

to BART and made a BART 

determination for the source. This is 

discussed in more detail in section 

IV.D.2 of this action. 

Also, as discussed in the Executive 

Summary above, in an earlier proposed 

action EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval of the LA RH SIP (76 FR 

82219). EPA’s proposed limited 

disapproval is based on deficiencies in 

the LA RH SIP submittal arising from 

the state’s reliance on the CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements. 

States such as Louisiana that are subject 

to the requirements of the Transport 

Rule trading program only for NOX must 

still address BART for EGUs for SO2 and 

other visibility impairing pollutants. 

See, 76 FR at 82224. While we proposed 

on December 30, 2011 to issue a FIP to 

address the deficiencies in Louisiana’s 

SIP associated with the BART 

requirements for NOX for EGUs, we did 

not propose a FIP to address the 

deficiencies associated with the BART 

requirements for SO2. Louisiana also 

relied on the CAIR in assessing the need 

for emissions reductions for SO2 from 

EGUs to satisfy BART requirements. 

Consequently, Louisiana will have to reevaluate EGUs with respect to SO2

BART requirements. 

a. ConocoPhillips 

The ConocoPhillips Alliance Refinery 

is a petroleum refinery near Belle 

Chasse Louisiana and is a subject-toBART source. On December 5, 2005, 

ConocoPhillips and the EPA entered 

into a Consent Decree (CD).22 The BART 

engineering analysis, provided by 

ConocoPhillips utilized emission 

reductions that are mandated per the CD 

for the fluidized catalytic cracker, the 

process refinery flares and the crude 

unit heater. Implementing these control 

projects per the CD emissions 

reductions will result in reducing the 

overall site visibility impacts. The 

visibility improvements resulting from 

this CD are discussed further in the 

TSD. However, the LDEQ did not 

provide a complete BART evaluation for 

these units. The submittal does not 

analyze controls for these units using 

the five steps as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(e). Also, no emissions limits for 

BART for these units were included in 

the LA RH SIP. Therefore, for the units 

covered by the CD, the LDEQ must 

provide BART analyses for the units to 

meet BART requirements (40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)).23 Also, a unit’s 

BART emissions limits must be a part of 

the RH SIP, and therefore the LDEQ 

must include the BART emissions limits 

in the RH SIP through a SIP revision.24

We propose to find that the BART 

determination for ConocoPhillips 

Alliance Refinery is deficient at this 

time. 

There are several other units subject 

to BART at the ConocoPhillips Alliance 

facility. These include the cooling water 

tower and gas-fired heaters. Louisiana 

provided a BART analysis for these as 

follows: cooling water tower for PM and 

PM10, and process heaters for NOX. For 

these units, ConocoPhillips determined, 

and the LDEQ agreed that there was not 

a cost effective control. We are 

proposing to accept the LDEQ’s BART 

analysis that no additional controls are 

required to meet BART for these units. 

For three other units, the emissions of 

PM, SO2, and NOX are minimal; so, the 

potential visibility improvement from 

controls on these units is also minimal. 

These units are the Product Dock No. 1 

MVR Loading, the Product Dock No. 2 

MVR Loading, and Coke Transfer and 

Storage. For detailed information, see 

the TSD section IV.D.3.a.iii and TSD 

Appendix A. The installation of any 

additional controls would likely achieve 

negligible emissions reductions, have 

almost no visibility impact on Breton, 

and would not be cost-effective.25 We 

propose to find that the LDEQ’s analysis 

for these units is adequate to meet 

BART requirements. 

b. Rhodia 

The Rhodia Sulfuric Acid plant is 

located in Baton Rouge. The Rhodia 

Sulfuric Acid plant produces sulfuric 

acid by using two sulfuric acid 

production trains, Unit 1 and Unit 2. 

Unit 1 was constructed in 1953, and at 

the time of the SIP submittal, had a 

production rate of 700 tons of sulfuric 

acid per day (700 tons sulfuric acid/ 

day). Although Rhodia Unit 1 was 

constructed outside the dates for BARTeligibility, the LDEQ identified it as 

BART-eligible. Therefore, we treat it as 

BART-eligible and have included this 

unit in the subject-to-BART discussion 

in this section.26 We request comments 

on whether this unit should be treated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11851 

27Civil Action No. 2:07CV134 WL. A copy of this 

CD is available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

28CAA 169A(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(e); and 64 FR 

35714, at 35741. 

29LA RH SIP submittal TSD Appendix G, Environ 

Report, pg 14. 

as BART-eligible. Unit 2 was 

constructed in 1968, and has a 

production rate of 1500 tons sulfuric 

acid/day. Therefore, Unit 2 is an 

‘‘existing stationary facility’’ for 

purposes of BART eligibility, as defined 

in 40 CFR 51.301. 

Effective July 23, 2007, the EPA, 

LDEQ and other parties entered into a 

CD with Rhodia requiring a scrubber to 

be installed on each of the units to 

control SO2 emissions.27 The BART 

engineering analysis assumed emission 

reductions that have since been 

mandated per the CD for Units 1 and 2. 

As stated above, without controls, the 

BART screening modeling for Rhodia 

showed a visibility impact at Breton of 

greater than 0.5 dv. Implementing 

control projects per the CD emissions 

reductions will result in reducing the 

overall site visibility impacts, and based 

on modeling with controls the LDEQ 

expects the visibility impairment from 

Rhodia to be below 0.5 dv at Breton. 

The visibility improvements resulting 

from this CD are discussed in the TSD. 

However, the LDEQ did not submit a 

complete BART evaluation for these 

units. The submittal does not analyze 

controls for the units using the five 

steps as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e). 

In order to satisfy BART requirements 

for SO2, Louisiana must provide a BART 

analysis. The LDEQ may be able to find 

that the controls required under the CD 

are among the most stringent, and 

therefore, no additional controls would 

be required for these units to meet 

BART. 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y.IV.D.1.9. 

Also, the emissions limits for Rhodia’s 

subject-to-BART units were not 

included in the RH SIP revision, so the 

LDEQ must include the BART emission 

limits in the RH SIP through a SIP 

revision.28 We propose to find that the 

BART determination for Rhodia is 

deficient at this time. 

The visibility impact due to NOX and 

PM emissions from Rhodia’s two 

subject-to-BART units is minimal; so, 

the potential visibility improvement 

from controls on these units is also 

minimal. For detailed information, see 

the TSD section IV.D.3.b and TSD 

Appendix B. The installation of any 

additional controls would likely achieve 

negligible emissions reductions, have 

almost no visibility impact on Breton, 

and would not be cost-effective.25 We 

propose to find the LDEQ’s analysis for 

these pollutants is adequate to meet 

BART requirements. 

c. Sid Richardson Carbon Company 

The Sid Richardson Carbon Company 

is a subject-to-BART source located in 

West Baton Rouge Parish. For the 

subject-to-BART units at the Sid 

Richardson facility, Sid Richardson/ 

LDEQ submitted a BART engineering 

analysis. For PM, the LDEQ determined 

that the high efficiency fabric filters 

already in use at the facility are BART. 

We propose to find that the state acted 

within its discretion in making this 

determination, and that the PM analyses 

provided by the LDEQ and Sid 

Richardson meet BART requirements. 

For NOX, the LA RH SIP Chapter 9 

states that the Sid Richardson 

engineering analyses included the 

potential installation of NOX add-on 

controls, but it determined that all were 

infeasible (there were no demonstrated 

NOX scrubbing technologies at any 

carbon black plants). However, there is 

not sufficient information in the LA RH 

SIP submittal to support the BART 

analysis conclusion that no controls are 

feasible. We propose to find that the 

NOX BART determination for Sid 

Richardson is deficient at this time. 

For SO2, the LA RH SIP Chapter 9 

states that the Sid Richardson 

engineering analyses included the 

potential installation of SO2 add-on 

controls, but it determined that all were 

infeasible (there were no demonstrated 

SO2 scrubbing technologies at any 

carbon black plants). However, 

Appendix G of the LA RH SIP submittal 

reflects that the SO2 evaluation for Sid 

Richardson considered four potential 

approaches and evaluated them for cost 

effectiveness: Three add-on controls— 

caustic scrubbing, wet limestone 

scrubbing, and Haldor Topsoe’s SNOX 

process, which is a process that removes 

SO2, NOX and PM from flue gas; the 

fourth approach would be to limit the 

sulfur content of the feedstock oil.29 The 

SIP documentation does not reconcile 

the cost analyses provided with the 

corresponding conclusion of the 

technical infeasibility for these same 

control options. Based on the cost 

analysis provided, the installation and 

use of scrubbers to control emissions 

may be well within a range that is cost 

effective. Also, the LDEQ indicated that 

no controls were technically feasible, 

but the record does not provide a 

sufficient basis for this conclusion. 

There is not sufficient information in 

the LA RH SIP submittal to support the 

BART analysis conclusion that a 

scrubber, or other technology, is not 

feasible. For these reasons, we propose 

to find that the SO2 BART 

determination for Sid Richardson is 

deficient at this time. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

As described in section III.E of this 

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

the state for achieving its RPGs. 

Louisiana’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 

Louisiana LTS was developed by the 

LDEQ, in coordination with the 

CENRAP RPO, through an evaluation of 

the following components: (1) 

Construction of a CENRAP 2002 

baseline emission inventory; (2) 

construction of a CENRAP 2018 

emission inventory, including 

reductions from the CENRAP member 

state controls required or expected 

under federal and state regulations, 

(including BART); (3) modeling to 

determine visibility improvement and 

apportion individual state 

contributions; (4) state consultation; and 

(5) application of the LTS factors. 

1. Emissions Inventories 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that 

Louisiana document the technical basis, 

including modeling, monitoring and 

emissions information, on which it 

relied upon to determine its 

apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations necessary for achieving 

reasonable progress in each mandatory 

Class I Federal area it affects. Louisiana 

must identify the baseline emissions 

inventory on which its strategies are 

based. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires 

that Louisiana identify all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment considered by the state in 

developing its long-term strategy. This 

includes major and minor stationary 

sources, mobile sources, and area 

sources. Louisiana met these 

requirements by relying on technical 

analyses developed by its RPO, 

CENRAP, and approved by all state 

participants, as described below. 

The emissions inventory used in the 

RH technical analyses was developed by 

the CENRAP with assistance from 

Louisiana. The LDEQ provided a 

statewide emissions inventory for 2002, 

representing the mid-point of the 2000– 

2004 baseline period, and a projected 

emissions inventory for 2018, the end of 

the first 10-year planning period. The 

2018 inventory is based on visibility 

modeling conducted by the CENRAP. 

The 2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions 

and applying reductions expected from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

30 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

(EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/

final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf. Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘our Modeling Guidance’’), located at http://www.

epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA– 

454/R–05–001. 

federal and state regulations affecting 

the emissions of the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, SO2, and VOCs. 

a. Louisiana’s 2002 Emission Inventory 

The LDEQ and the CENRAP 

developed an emission inventory for 

four inventory source classifications: 

point, area, non-road and on-road 

mobile sources for the baseline year of 

2002. Louisiana’s 2002 emissions 

inventory provides estimates of annual 

emissions for haze producing pollutants 

by source category as summarized in 

Table 3, based on information in 

Chapter 7 of Louisiana’s RH SIP. 

TABLE 3—LOUISIANA 2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY

[Tons/year] 

SO2 NH3 NOX VOCs PM10 PM2.5

Point ......................................................... 286,050 9,237 312,634 89,025 73,333 60,899 

Area .......................................................... 81,153 75,381 99,060 124,311 245,162 84,068 

Non-road mobile ...................................... 14,324 563 117,250 109,598 10,663 9,791 

On-road mobile ........................................ 4,653 3,748 15,137 64,643 3,563 2,689 

Total .................................................. 386,180 88,929 544,081 387,577 332,721 157,447 

See the TSD for details on how the 

2002 emissions inventory was 

constructed. The EPA approved the 

2002 emissions inventory on September 

3, 2009 (74 FR 45561). We are proposing 

to find that Louisiana’s 2002 emission 

inventory is acceptable for the purpose 

of developing the LTS. 

b. Louisiana’s 2018 Emission Inventory 

In constructing Louisiana’s 2018 

emission inventory, the LDEQ used a 

combination of our Economic Growth 

Analysis System (EGAS 6), our mobile 

emissions factor model (MOBILE 6), our 

off-road emissions factor model 

(NONROAD), and the Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM) for electric 

generating units. The CENRAP 

developed emissions for five inventory 

source classifications: Point, area, nonroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. The CENRAP used the 

2002 emission inventory, described 

above, to estimate emissions in 2018. 

All control strategies expected to take 

effect prior to 2018 are included in the 

projected emission inventory. 

Louisiana’s 2018 emissions inventory 

provides estimates of annual emissions 

for haze producing pollutants by source 

category as summarized in Table 4, 

based on information in Chapter 7 of the 

Louisiana RH SIP. 

TABLE 4—LOUISIANA’S 2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY

SO2 NH3 NOX VOCs PM10 PM2.5

Point ......................................................... 354,087 14,435 269,215 187,741 73,136 60,899 

Area .......................................................... 87,538 36,896 114,374 117,600 16,936 14,536 

Non-road mobile ...................................... 11,584 72 106,685 64,294 8,670 7,955 

On-road mobile ........................................ 561 5,436 44,806 30,340 1,191 1,191 

Total .................................................. 453,770 56,839 535,080 399,975 99,933 84,581 

See the TSD for details on how the 

2018 emissions inventory was 

constructed. The CENRAP and LDEQ 

used this and other state’s 2018 

emission inventories to construct 

visibility projection modeling for 2018. 

We are proposing to find that 

Louisiana’s 2018 emission inventory is 

acceptable. 

2. Visibility Projection Modeling 

The CENRAP performed modeling for 

the RH LTS for its member states, 

including Louisiana. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. The CENRAP used 

(1) the Mesoscale Meteorological Model 

(MM5) meteorological model, (2) the 

Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 

Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system to 

generate hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs, (3) the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

photochemical grid model and (4) the 

Comprehensive Air Quality model with 

extensions (CAMX), as a secondary 

corroborative model. The CAMX was 

also utilized with its Particulate Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool 

to provide source apportionment for 

both the baseline and future case 

visibility modeling. 

The photochemical modeling of RH 

for the CENRAP states for 2002 and 

2018 was conducted on the 36-km 

resolution national regional planning 

organization domain that covered the 

continental U.S., portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. The CENRAP states’ modeling 

was developed consistent with our 

guidance.30

The CENRAP 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 RH 

assessment of the LTS and for use in the 

modeling assessment. The 2002 

modeling efforts were used to evaluate 

air quality/visibility modeling for a 

historical episode—in this case, for 

calendar year 2002—to demonstrate the 

suitability of the modeling systems for 

subsequent planning, sensitivity, and 

emissions control strategy modeling. 

Model performance evaluation is 

performed by comparing output from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11853 

31An inverse megameter is the direct 

measurement unit for visibility impairment data. It 

is the amount of light scattered and absorbed as it 

travels over a distance of one million meters. 

Deciviews (dv) can be calculated from extinction 

data as follows: dv = 10 × ln (bext(Mm¥1)/10). 

32 ‘‘Boundary Conditions’’ means ‘‘the assumed 

concentrations along the later edges of the 36 km 

modeling domain.’’ LA RH SIP submittal Appendix 

B, Environ Report, p. 1–16. 

33LA RH SIP submittal Appendix B, Environ 

Report, p. 5–18. 

model simulations with ambient air 

quality data for the same time period to 

determine whether the model’s 

performance is sufficiently accurate to 

justify using the model for simulating 

future conditions. Once the CENRAP 

determined the model performance to 

be acceptable, it used the model to 

determine the 2018 RPGs using the 

current and future year air quality 

modeling predictions, and compared the 

RPGs to the URP. The results of the 

CENRAP’s visibility projection 

modeling are discussed in the section 

that follows. We are proposing to find 

that Louisiana’s visibility projection 

modeling is acceptable. 

3. Sources of Visibility Impairment 

Where Louisiana causes or 

contributes to impairment in a 

mandatory Class I Federal area, it must 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

SIP all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of the emission reductions needed 

to meet the progress goal for the area. If 

Louisiana has participated in a regional 

planning process, it must ensure it has 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that, 

‘‘Where other states cause or contribute 

to impairment in a * * * Class I area, 

the state must demonstrate that it has 

included * * * all measures necessary 

to obtain its share of the emissions 

reductions needed to meet the progress 

goal for the area. If the state has 

participated in a regional planning 

process, the state must ensure it has 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process.’’ 

The CENRAP used CAMX with its 

PSAT tool to provide source 

apportionment by geographic region and 

major source category. The pollutants 

causing the highest levels of light 

extinction are associated with the 

sources causing the most visibility 

impairment. 

a. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

the Breton Class I Area 

Visibility impairment at Breton in 

2002 on the worst 20% days is primarily 

(69%) due to point source emissions 

that contribute 77.7 inverse 

megameters 31 (Mm¥1) of the total 

extinction of 122.1 Mm¥1. The largest 

contributions come from inside the 

state. In 2018, point sources continue to 

contribute the most to visibility 

impairment at Breton, even though this 

contribution has decreased 

substantially. ‘‘The top five contributing 

source groups to 2018 visibility 

impairment at [Breton] for the worst 20 

percent days are: Louisiana Elevated 

Point Sources; Boundary Conditions; 32

East Elevated Point Sources; Gulf of 

Mexico Area Sources; and Louisiana 

Area Sources. Gulf of Mexico Area 

sources include off shore shipping and 

oil and gas development emissions.’’ 33

We are proposing to find that 

Louisiana’s identification of sources of 

visibility impairment for the Breton 

Class I area is acceptable. 

b. Louisiana’s Contribution to Visibility 

Impairment in Class I Areas Outside the 

State 

Table 5 shows the CENRAP CAMx 

and PSAT modeled contributions (in 

percentage of visibility impacts) to total 

extinction at all Class I areas from 

Louisiana sources for 2002 and 2018, 

respectively. The CAMx PSAT results 

were utilized to evaluate the impact of 

Louisiana emission sources in 2002 and 

2018 on visibility impairment at Class I 

areas outside of the state. 

TABLE 5—PERCENT CONTRIBUTION FROM LOUISIANA EMISSIONS TO TOTAL VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AT CLASS I AREAS ON

20% WORST DAYS

Class I area State 2002 2018 

Breton (BRET1) ........................................................ Louisiana .................................................................. 15.75 24.67 

Wichita Mountains (WIMO1) .................................... Oklahoma ................................................................. 3.47 4.83 

Caney Creek (CACR1) ............................................. Arkansas ................................................................... 2.86 4.23 

Big Bend NP (BIBE1) ............................................... Texas ........................................................................ 2.79 3.32 

Upper Buffalo Wilderness (UPBU1) ......................... Arkansas ................................................................... 1.80 2.71 

Hercules Glades Wilderness (HEGL1) ..................... Missouri .................................................................... 1.71 2.43 

Guadalupe Mountains NP (GUMO1) ....................... Texas ........................................................................ 1.32 1.57 

White Mountain Wilderness (WHIT1) ....................... New Mexico .............................................................. 1.28 1.44 

Sipsey Wilderness (SIPS1) ...................................... Alabama .................................................................... 0.96 1.78 

Salt Creek (SACR1) ................................................. New Mexico .............................................................. 0.93 1.07 

Mammoth Cave NP (MACA1) .................................. Kentucky ................................................................... 0.67 1.19 

Seney (SENE1) ........................................................ Michigan ................................................................... 0.54 0.77 

Bosque del Apache (BOAP1) ................................... New Mexico .............................................................. 0.42 0.48 

Great Smoky Mountains NP (GRSM1) .................... Tennessee ................................................................ 0.40 0.83 

Isle Royale NP (ISLE1) ............................................ Michigan ................................................................... 0.39 0.49 

Badlands NP (BADL1) .............................................. South Dakota ............................................................ 0.36 0.41 

Cadiz (CADI1) .......................................................... Kentucky ................................................................... 0.34 0.59 

Gila Wilderness (GICL1) .......................................... New Mexico .............................................................. 0.30 0.37 

Bondville (BOND1) ................................................... Illinois ........................................................................ 0.27 0.41 

Mingo (MING1) ......................................................... Missouri .................................................................... 0.22 0.33 

Bandelier (BAND1) ................................................... New Mexico .............................................................. 0.21 0.24 

San Pedro Parks (SAPE1) ....................................... New Mexico .............................................................. 0.20 0.22 

Wind Cave NP (WICA1) ........................................... South Dakota ............................................................ 0.14 0.16 

Wheeler Peak Wilderness (WHPE1) ........................ New Mexico .............................................................. 0.14 0.16 

As shown in the Table above, the 

largest contribution from Louisiana 

sources is at the Wichita Mountains 

Class I area in Oklahoma in both 2002 

and 2018. Louisiana is also projected to 

contribute a small amount of visibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

34See Appendix A of the TSD for this proposal 

for the CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality 

Modeling to Support Regional Haze State 

Implementation, as well as Appendix B of the LA 

RH SIP. 

degradation at Class I areas in other 

states as listed in Table 5. This table 

summarizes the projected contribution 

from Louisiana’s emissions on visibility 

degradation to Class I areas for the 20 

percent worst days in 2002 and 2018, as 

modeled by the CENRAP.34 We are 

proposing to find that Louisiana’s 

identification of sources of visibility 

impairment for Class I areas outside the 

state is acceptable. 

4. Consultation for Other State’s Class I 

Areas 

The LDEQ used the CENRAP as its 

main vehicle for facilitating 

collaboration with FLMs and other 

states in the CENRAP, and the VISTAS 

for other states outside the CENRAP to 

satisfy its LTS consultation requirement. 

This helped the LDEQ and other state 

agencies analyze emission 

apportionments at Class I areas and 

develop coordinated RH SIP strategies. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that 

Louisiana consult with other states if its 

emissions are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

that state’s Class I area(s), and that 

Louisiana consult with other states if 

those states’ emissions are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment at Breton NWA. The 

LDEQ’s consultations with other states 

are described in section IV.C.3 of this 

action. The CENRAP visibility modeling 

demonstrates Louisiana sources are 

responsible for a visibility extinction of 

approximately 3.5 Mm¥1 at Caney 

Creek on the worst 20% days for 2002.26

The LDEQ consulted with Arkansas as 

well as Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, 

Alabama, and Florida whose emissions 

have a potential visibility impact at 

Breton. We are proposing to find that 

the LDEQ’s consultations satisfy the 

requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i). 

5. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy 

Factors 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that 

Louisiana consider certain factors in 

developing its long-term strategy (the 

LTS factors). These include: (a) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (b) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (c) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; (d) source 

retirement and replacement schedules; 

(e) smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the state for these purposes; 

(f) enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

(g) the anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, 

and mobile source emissions over the 

period addressed by the long-term 

strategy. For the reasons outlined below, 

we are proposing to find that Louisiana 

has satisfied some, but not all of the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 

Also, Louisiana will have to consider 

whether EGUs previously covered by 

the CAIR, whether subject to BART or 

not, should be controlled to ensure 

reasonable progress. 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air 

Pollution Programs 

In addition to its BART 

determinations, Louisiana’s LTS 

incorporates emission reductions due to 

a number of ongoing air pollution 

control programs. 

The LDEQ considered the Tier 2 

Vehicle Emission Standards in 

developing its LTS. Federal Tier 2 

Vehicle Emission Standards for 

passenger cars and light trucks were 

fully implemented in 2009 and similar 

rules for heavy trucks were also 

implemented by 2009. These federal 

standards will result in reductions of 

emissions of PM, ozone precursors, and 

non-methane organic compounds. In 

developing its LTS, the LDEQ also 

considered the Highway Diesel and 

Nonroad Diesel Rules, which mandated 

the use of lower sulfur fuels in diesel 

engines beginning in 2006 for highway 

diesel fuel, and 2007 for non-road diesel 

fuel. These federal rules have resulted 

in more effective control of PM 

emissions from diesel engines by 

allowing the installation of control 

devices that were technically infeasible 

for fuels with higher sulfur content. In 

addition, the state will rely on federal 

consent decrees and implementation of 

the 2008 ozone standard. 

As noted in the EPA’s separate notice 

proposing revisions to the RHR (76 FR 

82219) a number of states, including 

Louisiana, fully consistent with the 

EPA’s regulations at the time, relied on 

the trading programs of the CAIR to 

satisfy the BART requirement and the 

requirement for a long-term strategy 

sufficient to achieve the state-adopted 

reasonable progress goals. In that notice, 

we proposed a limited disapproval of 

Louisiana’s long-term strategy and, for 

that reason, we are not taking action on 

the long-term strategy in this proposal 

insofar as Louisiana’s RH SIP relied on 

the CAIR. The docket for that 

rulemaking is available at Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729. Louisiana’s 

LTS is also deficient because it relied on 

deficient non-EGU BART 

determinations as discussed in section 

IV.D of this action. 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires 

that Louisiana consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities in developing its LTS. 

Construction-related activities are 

believed to be a small contributor to fine 

and coarse particulates in Louisiana. 

The LDEQ notes that Louisiana may 

require visibility monitoring in any 

Class I area where preconstruction and 

post-construction of any new source or 

major modification may have an adverse 

impact on visibility in any Class I area 

(LAC 33:III.504.E.3.b). In spite of a great 

deal of construction activity from the 

recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, no measurable impacts on 

visibility have been monitored from this 

activity. We are proposing to find that 

Louisiana satisfies this component of 

LTS. 

c. Emissions Limitations and Schedules 

of Compliance 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) requires 

that in developing its LTS, Louisiana 

consider emissions limitations and 

schedules of compliance to achieve the 

RPGs. As discussed in section IV.D.3 of 

this proposal, the SIP does not yet 

contain emission limits and schedules 

of compliance for those sources subject 

to BART. The BART emission limits 

established by the LDEQ are an element 

of the LTS, and because we are 

proposing to find that the relevant 

portion of the LDEQ’s BART 

determinations are deficient, we 

propose to find that this element of the 

LTS does not satisfy the federal 

requirements. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires 

that Louisiana consider source 

retirement and replacement schedules 

in developing its LTS. The LDEQ 

adequately addressed how it considered 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules in the development of its 

LTS. Louisiana’s LTS includes the 

promulgation of new rules for retrofit 

technology for existing equipment to 

meet requirements for new NAAQS, 

which will also provide visibility 

benefits. We are proposing to find that 

the LDEQ properly addressed the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) in the development of 

its LTS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11855 

35CAA 169A(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(e); and 64 FR 

35714, at 35741. 

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires 

that Louisiana consider smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes in 

developing its LTS. Where smoke 

impacts from fire are identified as an 

important contributor to regional haze, 

smoke management programs should be 

a key component of regional and State 

regional haze planning efforts and longterm strategies (64 FR 35736). 

The EPA encourages the development 

of smoke management programs 

between air regulators and land 

managers as a means to manage the 

impacts of wildland and prescribed 

burning. The sources of information 

described above, as well as other 

developmental efforts currently 

underway, provide effective, flexible 

approaches to smoke management. The 

LDEQ considered smoke management 

techniques for the purposes of 

agricultural and forestry management in 

its LTS. Chapter 13 of Title 33 of the 

LAC contains a general prohibition on 

‘‘open burning of refuse, garbage, trade 

waste, or other waste material.’’ 

Although the LDEQ does not have the 

jurisdiction or authority to make any 

rule, regulation, recommendations, or 

determination with respect to 

agricultural burning or controlled burns 

of pastureland, marshland, or 

timberland, the Louisiana Department of 

Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) does 

have the authority. The LDAF, in 

consultation with the LDEQ, is working 

to develop a SMP that includes 

measures that can be taken to reduce 

residual smoke from burning activities 

as well as a process to evaluate potential 

smoke impacts at sensitive receptors 

and guidelines for scheduling fires such 

that exposure of sensitive populations is 

minimized and visibility impacts in 

Class I areas are reduced. Because 

visibility impacts from smoke are 

significant in Louisiana, we propose to 

find that Louisiana should finalize its 

SMP. 

f. Enforceability of Emissions 

Limitations and Control Measures 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) requires 

that Louisiana ensure the enforceability 

of emission limitations and control 

measures used to meet reasonable 

progress goals. The SIP does not yet 

contain emission limits and schedules 

of compliance for those EGU sources, if 

any, subject to SO2 BART. Also, 

Louisiana’s LTS is deficient because it 

relied on deficient non-EGU BART 

determinations as discussed in section 

IV.D of this action. The emissions limits 

for these subject-to-BART sources were 

not included in the LA RH SIP.35

Therefore, we are proposing to find that 

the LDEQ has not fully satisfied the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) in the development of 

its LTS. 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility 

Due to Projected Changes 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G) requires 

that in developing its LTS, Louisiana 

consider the anticipated net effect on 

visibility due to projected changes in 

point, area, and mobile source 

emissions over the period addressed by 

the long-term strategy. In developing its 

RH SIP, the LDEQ relied on the 

CENRAP’s 2018 modeling projections, 

which show that net visibility is 

expected to improve by 3.22 dv at 

Breton NWA. The CENRAP’s 2018 

modeling projections account for 

changes in point, area, and on-road and 

non-road mobile emissions. The results 

of the CENRAP’s 2018 modeling 

projections are discussed in sections 

IV.E.2 and IV.E.3 of this proposed 

rulemaking. We are proposing to find 

that Louisiana satisfies this component 

of LTS. 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

Our visibility regulations direct states 

to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

RH, as explained in section III of this 

action. Under our RAVI regulations, the 

RAVI portion of a state SIP must address 

any integral vistas identified by the 

FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See, 

40 CFR 51.302. 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 Federal area includes 

any integral vista associated with that 

area. The FLMs for Breton have not 

identified any reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (i.e., RAVI) from 

Louisiana or other U.S. sources. The 

FLMs for the Class I areas that 

Louisiana’s emissions impact in other 

states have not identified any 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment caused by Louisiana 

sources. For these reasons, the 

Louisiana RH SIP does not have any 

measures in place or a requirement to 

address RAVI. We propose to find that 

this requirement is not applicable to the 

LA RH SIP at this time. This provision 

may be re-considered upon receipt of 

submittals from the LDEQ for 

subsequent implementation periods. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires the SIP 

contain a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

of RH visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. This 

monitoring strategy must be coordinated 

with the monitoring strategy required in 

40 CFR 51.305 for reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment. As 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance 

with this requirement may be met 

through participation in the IMPROVE 

network. See the TSD for details 

concerning the IMPROVE network. We 

are proposing to find that the LDEQ has 

satisfied this requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires the 

establishment of any additional 

monitoring sites or equipment needed to 

assess whether reasonable progress 

goals to address RH for all mandatory 

Class I Federal areas within the state are 

being achieved. The CENRAP 

monitoring workgroup noted there was 

a visibility void in Southern Arkansas. 

An IMPROVE protocol monitor was 

located in north central Louisiana. PM2.5

measurements from the Louisiana 

monitoring network help the LDEQ to 

characterize air pollution levels in areas 

across the state and therefore aid in the 

analysis of visibility improvement in 

and near the Class I areas. The LDEQ 

also commits in the Louisiana RH SIP to 

consider alternative approaches to 

evaluating visibility monitoring 

obligations if that becomes necessary. 

We are proposing to find that the LDEQ 

has satisfied this requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that 

the LDEQ establish procedures by 

which monitoring data and other 

information are used in determining the 

contribution of emissions from within 

Louisiana to RH visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside the state. The 

monitor at Breton was owned and 

operated by the USFWS. After this 

monitor was destroyed by Hurricane 

Katrina in 2005, the monitor was 

replaced and relocated nearby, by the 

USFWS, at Lake Catherine in St. 

Bernard Parish. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program is national in 

scope, and other states have similar 

monitoring and data reporting 

procedures, ensuring a consistent and 

robust monitoring data collection 

system. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) 

indicates, participation in the IMPROVE 

program constitutes compliance with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11856 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

this requirement. We are therefore 

proposing that the LDEQ has satisfied 

this requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that 

the SIP must provide for the reporting 

of all visibility monitoring data to the 

Administrator at least annually for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area in the 

state. To the extent possible, Louisiana 

should report visibility monitoring data 

electronically. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) 

also requires that the LDEQ provide for 

other elements, including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures, 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility. We are proposing that 

Louisiana’s participation in the 

IMPROVE network ensures the 

monitoring data is reported at least 

annually, is easily accessible, and 

therefore complies with this 

requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that 

the LDEQ maintain a statewide 

inventory of emissions of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal 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. The State must also include 

a commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. Please refer to section IV.E 

of this action, where we discuss the 

LDEQ’s emission inventory. The LDEQ 

has stated that it intends to update the 

Louisiana statewide emissions 

inventories periodically. We are 

proposing to find that this satisfies the 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). 

H. Coordination With Federal Land 

Managers 

Breton NWA is a federally protected 

wilderness area for which the USFWS is 

the FLM. Although the FLMs are very 

active in participating in the RPOs, the 

RHR grants the FLMs a special role in 

the review of the RH SIPs, summarized 

in section III.H. of this action. We view 

both the FLMs and the state agencies as 

our partners in the RH process. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(1) requires that by 

November 29, 1999, Louisiana must 

have identified in writing to the FLMs 

the title of the official to which the FLM 

of Breton can submit any 

recommendations on the 

implementation of 40 CFR 51.308. We 

acknowledge this section has been 

satisfied by all states via communication 

prior to this SIP. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), Louisiana 

was obligated to provide the USFWS 

with an opportunity for consultation, in 

person and at least 60 days prior to 

holding a public hearing on its RH SIP. 

In practice, state agencies have usually 

provided all FLMs—the Forest Service, 

the Park Service, and the USFWS, 

copies of their proposed RH SIP, as the 

FLMs collectively have reviewed these 

RH SIPs. The LDEQ followed this 

practice and proposed this 

implementation plan revision for public 

comment on November 20, 2007 and 

notified the federal land manager staff of 

the public hearing held on January 24, 

2008. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that the 

LDEQ provide in its RH SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. The 

LDEQ has provided that information in 

Appendix A of its RH SIP. 

Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies 

the RH SIP must provide procedures for 

continuing consultation between the 

state and FLM on the implementation of 

the visibility protection program 

required by 40 CFR 51.308, including 

development and review of 

implementation plan revisions and 

5-year progress reports, and on the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in the 

mandatory Class I Federal areas. The 

LDEQ has stipulated in its RH SIP it will 

continue to coordinate and consult with 

the FLMs as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4). The LDEQ states it intends 

to consult the FLMs in the development 

of future progress reports and plan 

revisions, as well as during the 

implementation of programs having the 

potential to contribute to visibility 

impairment at Breton NWA. We are 

proposing to find that the LDEQ has 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

The LDEQ affirmed its commitment to 

complete items required in the future 

under our RHR. The LDEQ 

acknowledged its requirement under 40 

CFR 51.308(f), to submit periodic 

progress reports and RH SIP revisions, 

with the first report due by July 31, 2018 

and every ten years thereafter. 

The LDEQ also acknowledged its 

requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g), to 

submit a progress report in the form of 

a SIP revision to us every five years 

following this initial submittal of the 

Louisiana RH SIP. The report will 

evaluate the progress made towards the 

RPGs for each mandatory Class I area 

located within Louisiana and in each 

mandatory Class I area located outside 

Louisiana which may be affected by 

emissions from within Louisiana. We 

are proposing to find that the LDEQ has 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (g). 

J. Determination of the Adequacy of 

Existing Implementation Plan 

40 CFR 51.308(h) requires that 

Louisiana take one of the listed actions, 

as appropriate, at the same time the 

State is required to submit any 5-year 

progress report to the EPA in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g). The 

LDEQ has committed in its SIP to take 

one of the actions listed under 40 CFR 

51.308(h), depending on the findings of 

the 5-year progress report. We are 

proposing to find that the LDEQ has 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing a partial 

disapproval and a partial limited 

approval of Louisiana’s RH SIP revision 

submitted on June 13, 2008. 

Specifically, we are proposing to find 

that the following portions of the LA RH 

SIP have satisfied the federal 

requirement and are addressed in our 

proposed partial limited approval, 

insofar as the elements do not rely on 

the SO2 reductions from the CAIR: The 

State’s 

• Identification of affected Class I 

areas; 

• Establishment of baseline, natural, 

and current visibility conditions, 

including the URP; 

• Coordination of RAVI and RH 

Requirements; 

• RH monitoring strategy and other 

SIP requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4); 

• Commitment to submit periodic RH 

SIP revisions and periodic progress 

reports describing progress towards the 

RPGs; 

• Commitment to make a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

existing SIP at the time a progress report 

is submitted; and 

• Coordination with Federal Land 

Managers. 

We are proposing to find that 

Louisiana’s RPGs meet some federal 

requirements, but also contain some 

deficiencies. We are proposing to find 

that the State’s RPGs are deficient given 

our proposed finding that certain of 

Louisiana’s BART determinations are 

not fully approvable. In general, the 

State followed the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1), but these goals do not 

reflect appropriate emissions reductions 

from BART. For LTS, we are proposing 

to find that the State’s LTS satisfies 

many of the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3); however, we are proposing 

to find that the submitted LTS is 

deficient because a portion of it relies 

on BART determinations that we are 

proposing to disapprove (see section 

IV.E for detailed information regarding 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11857 

our proposed findings concerning LTS). 

Also, because visibility impacts from 

smoke are significant in Louisiana, we 

propose to find that that Louisiana 

should finalize its SMP. In addition, we 

are proposing to find that the following 

elements do not satisfy the federal 

requirements for the reasons discussed 

in section IV of this proposal: the State’s 

• Determination that the Mosaic 

Fertilizer Uncle Sam Plant is exempt 

from BART analysis; and 

• BART analyses for ConocoPhillips, 

Rhodia, and Sid Richardson Carbon 

Black Plant. As discussed in section I of 

this proposal, the State must address 

BART for SO2 for EGUs and the related 

element of LTS because it can no longer 

rely on the CAIR to address these 

requirements. In a separate action, the 

EPA proposed a limited disapproval of 

the Louisiana RH 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 (DC Circuit) to the 

EPA of the CAIR. 76 FR 82219. We are 

not taking action in this proposal to 

address the state’s reliance on the CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze 

requirements related to NOX and SO2

emissions from EGUs. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to act on state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, 

because this proposed action under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA will not in-and-of itself create 

any new information collection burdens 

but simply approves or disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed rule under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA will not in-and-of itself create 

any new requirements but simply 

approves or disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for the EPA to fashion for small entities 

less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this proposed rule does not mean that 

the EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

action 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 

action proposes to approve or 

disapprove pre-existing 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 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the 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.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves or disapproves certain 

State requirements for inclusion into the 

SIP and does not alter the relationship 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the action 

the EPA is proposing neither imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempts tribal 

law. Therefore, the requirements of 

section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this rule. 

Consistent with the EPA policy, the EPA 

nonetheless is offering consultation to 

Tribes regarding this rulemaking action. 

The EPA will respond to relevant 

comments in the final rulemaking 

action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11858 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed action 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in and of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

approves or disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (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 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

the EPA to provide Congress, through 

OMB, explanations when the Agency 

decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this proposed action. In 

reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve or disapprove state 

choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve or disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will 

not in and of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it does not 

provide the EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport 

of pollution, Regional haze, Best 

available control technology. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4676 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0219–201148; FRL– 

9639–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

North 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 North 

Carolina state implementation plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of North 

Carolina through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, Division of Air Quality 

(NCDAQ), on December 17, 2007, that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas (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 North Carolina on the 

basis that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the North Carolina SIP. In a 

separate action, EPA has proposed a 

limited disapproval of the North 

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–2010–0219, 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–2010–0219, 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS