11974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4681 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0150, FRL–9638–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited 

approval of a revision to the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Iowa on March 25, 2008, 

that addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

addresses 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 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas caused by 

emissions of air pollutants from 

numerous sources located over a wide 

geographic area (also referred to as the 

‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of this SIP revision to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Iowa on the basis that 

the revision, as a whole, strengthens the 

Iowa SIP. In a separate action, EPA 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Iowa regional haze 

SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP arising from the 

remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). Therefore, we are not taking 

action in this notice 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–R07– 

OAR–2012–0150, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (913) 551–7864 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

4. Mail: Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy 

Wolfersberger. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air 

Planning and Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy 

Wolfersberger. 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 a.m. to 5 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No.: EPA–R07–OAR–2012– 

0150. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/

dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning and Development 

Branch, EPA Region 7 Office, 901 N 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11975 

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

the EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited 

approval results in approval of the entire SIP 

submittal, even of those parts that are deficient, and 

prevent the EPA from granting a full approval of the 

SIP revision. Processing of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 

Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA 

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

Calcagni Memorandum) located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

2EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Iowa Regional Haze 

Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this 

action. 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 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with Section 169A of the 

CAA, the EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

additional areas as Class I areas, which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory 

Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a 

‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When 

we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we 

mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Chrissy Wolfersberger at 901 N 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; by 

telephone at (913) 551–7864; or by 

email at wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

G. Monitoring Strategy 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the state of 

Iowa’s submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

D. Long-term Strategy 

E. Consultation with Other States 

F. BART 

i. BART Eligible Sources 

ii. BART Subject Sources 

1. Non-EGUs (Electric Generating Units) 

2. EGU BART Evaluation for Particulate 

Matter (PM) 

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

H. Monitoring Strategy 

I. Emissions Inventory 

J. Reporting Requirements 

K. Consultation With FLMs 

L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

V. Proposed Actions 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of Iowa’s March 25, 2008, SIP revision 

addressing regional haze under CAA 

sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) because 

the revision as a whole strengthens the 

Iowa SIP.1 This proposed rulemaking 

and the accompanying Technical 

Support Document (TSD) explain the 

basis for EPA’s proposed limited 

approval action.2

In a separate action, EPA has 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

Iowa regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 76 FR 

82219. We are not proposing to take 

action in today’s rulemaking on issues 

associated with Iowa’s reliance on CAIR 

in its regional haze SIP. Comments on 

our proposed limited disapproval of 

Iowa’s regional haze SIP may be 

directed to the docket for that 

rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0729. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 3 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 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 set 

forth 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 Federal Class 

I areas 4 in which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

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

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (45 FR 80084). These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment; 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

In the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, 

Congress added section 169B to focus 

attention on regional haze issues. EPA 

promulgated a rule to address regional 

haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the 

RHR. The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5A deciview is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as ‘‘a 

haze index derived from calculated light extinction, 

such that uniform changes in haziness correspond 

to uniform incremental changes in perception 

across the entire range of conditions, from pristine 

to highly impaired.’’ 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

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 Federal visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

Section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 States, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, tribal governments and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

the EPA has encouraged the States and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their States and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM and other pollutants leading to 

regional haze. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) 5 as the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The dv is a more useful measure for 

tracking progress in improving visibility 

than light extinction itself because each 

dv change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one dv.6

The dv is used in expressing RPGs 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, States must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each ten-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires States to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

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

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, States must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to States regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility conditions under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http://www.epa.

gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_

envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance’’), and Guidance for Tracking 

Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule 

(EPA–454/B–03–004 September 2003 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ 

t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, States are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

States that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11977 

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

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

of progress, but instead calls for States 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, States must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in the 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 the EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

the EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, States must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the ten-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. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires 

States to revise their SIPs to contain 

such measures as may be necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal, including a 

requirement that certain categories of 

existing major stationary sources 7 built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the State. 

Under the RHR, States are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, States also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, the EPA published 

the Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist States in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts, a State must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that States should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, States 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The State must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of 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. 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

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

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

States consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA’s approval of the 

regional haze SIP. CAA section 

169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows 

States to implement an alternative 

program in lieu of BART so long as the 

alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal than would BART. Under 

regulations issued in 2005 revising the 

regional haze program, the EPA made 

just such a demonstration for CAIR. 70 

FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s 

regulations provide that States 

participating in the CAIR cap-and trade 

program under 40 CFR Part 96 pursuant 

to the EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 

Part 97 need not require affected BARTeligible EGUs to install, operate, and 

maintain BART for emissions of SO2

and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because 

CAIR did not address direct emissions 

of PM, States were still required to 

conduct a BART analysis for PM 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

emissions from EGUs subject to BART 

for that pollutant. 

Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted 

in the remand of the rule to EPA. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(DC Cir. 2008). EPA issued a new rule 

in 2011 to address the interstate 

transport of NOX and SO2 in the eastern 

United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport Rule,’’ also 

known as the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA 

proposed to find that the trading 

programs in the Transport Rule would 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

towards the national goal than would 

BART in the States in which the 

Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. 

Based on this proposed finding, EPA 

also proposed to revise the RHR to allow 

States to substitute participation in the 

trading programs under the Transport 

Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has 

not taken final action on that rule. Also 

on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the DC Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolutions of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer the CAIR in the interim until 

the court rules on the petitions for 

review of the Transport Rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that States 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that 

States include a LTS in their regional 

haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation 

of all control measures a State will use 

during the implementation period of the 

specific SIP submittal to meet 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within, or affected by emissions 

from, the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a State’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another State, the 

RHR requires the impacted State to 

coordinate with the contributing States 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing State must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between States may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address 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 Long-Term Strategy 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c), regarding the LTS for 

RAVI, to require that the RAVI plan 

must provide for a periodic review and 

SIP revision not less frequently than 

every three years until the date of 

submission of the State’s first plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(b) and (c). The State must revise 

its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze on 

or before this date. The State must also 

submit the first such coordinated LTS 

with its first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress 

reports evaluating progress toward 

RPGs, must be submitted consistent 

with the schedule for SIP submission 

and periodic progress reports set forth 

in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), 

respectively. The periodic review of a 

State’s LTS must be submitted to EPA 

as a SIP revision and report on both 

regional haze and RAVI impairment. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the 

requirement for a monitoring strategy 

for measuring, characterizing, and 

reporting of regional haze visibility 

impairment that is representative of all 

mandatory Class I Federal areas within 

the State. The strategy must be 

coordinated with the monitoring 

strategy required in 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 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the State; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the State, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A State 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every ten years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11979 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of 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. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least sixty 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. What is EPA’s analysis of the State 

of Iowa’s submittal? 

EPA believes that the State has met 

the requirements of the CAA sections 

110(l) and 110(a)(2) which require that 

the State adopt a SIP after reasonable 

notice and public hearing. EPA also 

believes that the State has met the 

requirements of the specific procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions 

promulgated at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart 

F. These requirements include 

publication of notices by prominent 

advertisement in the relevant 

geographic area of a public hearing on 

proposed revisions, at least a 30-day 

public comment period, and the 

opportunity for a public hearing, and 

that the State, in accordance with its 

laws, submit the revision to EPA for 

approval. Specific information on 

Iowa’s rulemaking, regional haze SIP 

development and the public information 

process is included in Chapter 2, and 

Appendix 2.1, of the State of Iowa’s 

regional haze SIP, which is included in 

the docket of this proposed rulemaking. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

There are no Class I areas hosted by 

the State of Iowa, and no portion of land 

within the State of Iowa is within 300 

kilometers (km) of a Class I area. 

However, States without Class I areas 

are still required to submit SIPs that 

address the apportionment of visibility 

impact from the emissions generated by 

sources within the State’s borders at 

Class I areas hosted by other States. 

The State of Iowa participated in the 

planning efforts of the CENRAP which 

is affiliated with the Central States Air 

Resource Agencies (CENSARA). This 

RPO includes nine States—Nebraska, 

Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, 

Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and 

Louisiana. CENRAP and its contractors 

provided air quality modeling to the 

States to help them determine whether 

sources located within the State can be 

reasonably expected to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area. The modeling conducted 

relied on baseline year (2002) and future 

planning year (2018) emissions 

inventories that were prepared with 

participation from each of the CENRAP 

States. 

The State of Iowa relied upon the 

regional modeling work performed by 

CENRAP for determining the impact 

that sources within the State might have 

on Class I areas in the region and 

beyond. The modeling was based on PM 

Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT) for the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) 

photochemical model. A detailed 

description of the source apportionment 

methods utilized by CENRAP is 

available in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP. 

The following Class I areas were 

evaluated for contribution by the State 

of Iowa: 

• Boundary Waters Canoe Area, 

Minnesota (BOWA). 

• Voyageurs National Park, 

Minnesota (VOYA). 

• Seney Wilderness Area, Michigan 

(SENE). 

• Isle Royale National Park, Michigan 

(ISLE). 

• Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, 

Missouri (HEGL). 

• Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri 

(MING). 

• Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas 

(CACR). 

• Upper Buffalo Wilderness, 

Arkansas (UPBU). 

• Badlands National Park, South 

Dakota (BADL). 

• Wind Cave National Park, South 

Dakota (WICA). 

BOWA, VOYA, SENE and ISLE are 

known as the Northern Midwest Class I 

areas. According to the CENRAP PSAT 

results, the combined effect of all Iowa 

emissions upon the total modeled 

visibility impairment at the four 

Northern Midwest Class I areas is 

approximately 4 to 5 percent in both 

2002 and 2018. The data were 

calculated in accordance with the new 

IMPROVE equation and are 

representative of those days with the 

worst 20 percent visibility conditions. 

TABLE 1—PERCENT CONTRIBUTION OF IOWA, MINNESOTA, AND MICHIGAN TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT AT THE NORTHERN

MIDWEST CLASS I AREAS, 20 PERCENT WORST DAYS

Iowa Minnesota Michigan 

2002 2018 2002 2018 2002 2018 

Boundary Waters ..................................... 3.7 3.9 25.6 28.5 2.3 2.7 

Voyagers .................................................. 3.8 4.0 29.1 30.4 1.4 1.6 

Isle Royale ............................................... 4.5 4.9 11.5 12.5 11.1 12.8 

Seney ....................................................... 4.2 4.8 3.9 4.4 9.6 12.7 

The PSAT results provided above are 

in terms of percentages of total visibility 

impairment. The State of Iowa found 

them useful for determining the 

proportion of the State’s contribution in 

relation to the total modeled visibility 

impairment at a Class I area. However, 

characterizing visibility impairment 

using just percentages can fail to 

identify the magnitude of the 

contribution. For example, Iowa’s 

percent contributions increase between 

2002 and 2018, but the actual light 

extinction values decrease between the 

same years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/index.html. 

TABLE 2—IOWA’S ABSOLUTE CONTRIBUTION TO VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT, NORTHERN MIDWEST CLASS I AREAS

Worst 20 percent days modeled extinction (Mm–1) 

Iowa Class I area total 

2002 2018 2002 2018 

Boundary Waters ............................................................................................. 2.39 2.08 64.87 53.44 

Voyagers .......................................................................................................... 2.60 1.97 56.45 48.84 

Isle Royale ....................................................................................................... 3.23 3.02 71.40 61.26 

Seney ............................................................................................................... 4.54 3.95 107.92 82.00 

Iowa’s contributions to visibility 

impairment, as calculated through light 

extinction using the new IMPROVE 

equation, are provided in Table 2. The 

total modeled visibility impairment for 

each Class I area are also shown in the 

table. Iowa emissions sources 

cumulatively contribute only 2.2–4.5 

Mm–1 of the 56–107 Mm–1 total 

modeled visibility impairment at the 

Northern Midwest Class I areas in 2002. 

In tandem, Iowa’s percentage and 

absolute contributions describe the 

impacts emissions sources in Iowa may 

have upon nearby Class I areas. 

Another way to assess Iowa’s 

contribution to visibility impairment is 

to use the dv metric. As shown by Table 

3, modeling results show that visibility 

improvements resulting from the 

elimination of all Iowa sources yield 

impacts below 0.5 dv. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED 2018 LEVEL OF VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL IOWA EMISSIONS SOURCES

2018 Worst 20% 

(dv) 

2018 Worst 20% 

less Iowa’s 

contribution (dv) 

Iowa’s visibility 

& impacts (dv) 

Boundary Waters ................................................................................................. 18.5 18.1 0.4 

Voyagers .............................................................................................................. 17.7 17.4 0.3 

Isle Royale ........................................................................................................... 19.6 19.2 0.4 

Seney ................................................................................................................... 22.2 21.8 0.4 

The State determined that when 

considered collectively, the data in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 show that Iowa 

sources were responsible for a minimal 

contribution to visibility impairment at 

the Northern Midwest Class I areas. 

Iowa’s contributions to the Arkansas 

and Missouri Class I areas (HEGL, 

UPBU, CACR, MING) in terms of 

percentage contribution to visibility 

extension were less than to the Northern 

Midwest Class I areas. PSAT analysis 

showed that Iowa sources contributed 

approximately 1.6–2.7 percent to the 

total visibility extinction on the 20 

percent worst visibility days in 2018 at 

these Class I areas. 

PSAT analysis showed that Iowa 

sources contributed approximately 1.6 

percent to the total visibility extinction 

on the 20 percent worst visibility days 

in 2018 at the BADL and approximately 

1.2 percent to the total visibility 

extinction on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days in 2018 at the Wind Cave 

National Park, an impact which Iowa 

determined to be insignificant. 

EPA believes the State of Iowa 

adequately identified the Class I areas 

impacted by emissions from Iowa 

sources and the State adequately 

determined the apportionment of those 

pollutants from sources located within 

the State. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

States that host Class I areas are 

required to estimate the baseline, 

natural and current visibility conditions 

of those Class I areas. As Iowa does not 

host a Class I area, it is not required to 

estimate these metrics. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

States hosting Class I areas have 

established RPGs, and have made 

assessments regarding whether emission 

reductions are needed from sources in 

Iowa in order to meet their RPG. This 

consultation is described in Section IV. 

E of this rulemaking. EPA is proposing 

to determine that the State has met the 

requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) 

of the RHR. 

D. Long-Term Strategy 

As discussed in greater detail in 

section IV. I. of this proposed 

rulemaking, the emissions inventory 

used in the State’s regional haze 

technical analyses was developed by 

CENRAP. The 2018 emissions inventory 

was developed by projecting 2002 

emissions and applying reductions 

expected from Federal and State 

regulations affecting the emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants. The 

emissions inventory for Iowa projects 

changes to point, area and mobile 

source inventories by the end of the first 

implementation period resulting from 

population growth, industrial, energy 

and natural resources development, 

land management, and air pollution 

control. 

There are many Federal and State 

control programs being implemented 

that the State of Iowa anticipates will 

reduce emissions between the end of the 

baseline period and 2018. Emission 

reductions from these control programs 

are included in the modeling analysis 

and are projected to achieve substantial 

visibility improvement by 2018 in the 

CENRAP and MRPO Class I areas. Iowa 

considered the minor and major new 

source review programs (NSR), 

nonattainment new source review 

programs (NNSR), prevention of 

significant deterioration permits (PSD), 

CAIR, the heavy duty highway diesel 

rule, the clean air non-road diesel rule, 

other on-road and non-road mobile 

source programs, operating permits, 

pertinent new source performance 

standards (NSPS), national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP), associated maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards, and Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM) 8 results in developing its 

long-term strategy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11981 

9State consultation letters are provided in 

Appendix 10 of the SIP. 

In a separate notice proposing limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 

a number of States, including Iowa, EPA 

noted that these States relied on the 

trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the 

BART requirement and the requirement 

for a LTS sufficient to achieve the Stateadopted reasonable progress goals. (76 

FR 82219, December 30, 2011). In that 

notice, we proposed a limited 

disapproval of Iowa’s LTS insofar as it 

relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are 

not taking action on that aspect of the 

long-term strategy in this notice. 

Comments on that proposed 

determination may be directed to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729. 

In order to mitigate the impact of 

construction activities, the State of 

Iowa’s rule on fugitive dust (567 IAC 

23.3(2)‘‘c’’) states that reasonable 

precautions shall be taken to prevent the 

discharge of visible emissions of 

airborne dust beyond the lot line of the 

property from which the emissions 

originated. The State also requires 

minor NSR permits for aggregate 

processing plants, concrete batch plants, 

and asphalt plants. Portable aggregate, 

concrete, or asphalt plants must notify 

the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources (IDNR) thirty days before 

transferring the equipment to a new 

location to allow for review of the 

emissions impacts on national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS). The 

IDNR would notify the portable plant if 

there are potential adverse impacts on 

the NAAQS. A more stringent emission 

standard and the installation of 

additional control equipment would be 

required if the relocation would prevent 

the attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Iowa determined that no 

additional measures were needed to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities for purposes of visibility 

improvement, and EPA agrees with this 

determination. 

Iowa demonstrated that source 

retirement and replacement schedules 

were taken into account, to the extent 

possible, when developing inputs for 

the IPM that was used in the CENRAP 

modeling analysis. 

Iowa does not have a smoke 

management program at this time. Iowa 

notes that the CENRAP PSAT modeling 

indicates that fires in Iowa do not 

significantly contribute to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, and 

therefore believes that a smoke 

management program is not needed for 

purposes of visibility improvement at 

this time. 

The State has determined, and the 

EPA agrees, that the implementation of 

the on the books and on the way 

controls mentioned above are the 

control measures necessary for the State 

to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reductions agreed upon 

through the consultation process 

(discussed in greater detail below and in 

Section IV.E of this proposed 

rulemaking) as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

E. Consultation With Other States 

Iowa participated with the central 

consultation group, a subset of the 

CENRAP. This group was coordinated 

by the States of Missouri and Arkansas. 

Other participants include Ohio, 

Indiana, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas, 

Kentucky, Tennessee, FLMs, other 

RPOs, and tribes. In addition to 

participation in the CENRAP regional 

planning process, the SIP indicates that 

Iowa also participated in the Midwest 

Class I area consultation group, 

coordinated by the States of Minnesota 

and Michigan, which included 

participation from the States of Illinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin, as well as Tribal lands in the 

five States that are part of the Midwest 

Planning Organization (MRPO). 

In a letter dated July 23, 2007,9 the 

central consultation group determined 

that additional reductions beyond 

existing and proposed controls, through 

both State and Federal requirements, 

would not be necessary from the State 

of Iowa in order for the uniform rate of 

progress to be met at each of the Class 

I areas in the States of Missouri and 

Arkansas (HEGL, MING, CACR, and the 

UPBU). EPA believes that this satisfies 

the requirement for consultation 

between these States. 

Iowa communicated directly with the 

State of South Dakota, via letters dated 

May 31, 2007, and June 18, 2007, 

regarding visibility impacts at Badlands 

and Wind Cave National Parks. The 

State of South Dakota asked the State of 

Iowa for any analysis that it conducted 

to determine impacts, if any, sources in 

Iowa may have on the South Dakota 

Class I areas. The State of Iowa 

responded that source PSAT analysis 

was available on the CENRAP Web site 

titled ‘‘PSAT Viz Tool 27–April 2007.’’ 

Iowa explained the analysis showed that 

sources in the State of Iowa contributed 

approximately 1.6 percent to the total 

visibility extinction on the 20 percent 

worst visibility days in 2018 at 

Badlands and approximately 1.2 percent 

to the total visibility extinction on the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 2018 

at Wind Cave, which Iowa considered to 

be an insignificant contribution. The 

State of Iowa did not receive a response 

or request for additional information 

from the State of South Dakota. EPA 

believes that this satisfies the 

requirement for consultation between 

these two States. 

The State of Iowa also communicated 

directly with the State of Oklahoma 

regarding potential visibility impacts of 

Iowa sources on the Wichita Mountains 

Wildlife Refuge. In a letter dated 

February 25, 2008, the State of 

Oklahoma invited States that had a 

projected contribution of at least 1 Mm1 in 2018 visibility impact at Wichita 

Mountains to participate in its 

consultation process. The letter goes on 

to determine that, after evaluation, in 

the 2018 modeling projections for the 20 

percent worst visibility days at Wichita 

Mountains, anthropogenic emissions 

from the sources in the State of Iowa 

were not reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Wichita Mountains and that the State of 

Oklahoma was not requesting that the 

State of Iowa consider additional 

emission reductions. EPA believes that 

this satisfies the requirement for 

consultation between these two States. 

In a letter dated September 19, 2007, 

the State of Minnesota determined that 

the State of Iowa (among other States), 

was a significant contributor to visibility 

impairment at Voyageurs National Park 

and Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness. Attachments provided with 

the letter indicated that the State of 

Minnesota utilized Lake Michigan Air 

Directors Consortium (LADCO) 

trajectory analysis and CENRAP PSAT 

analysis (for baseline years) to 

determine if a State contributed 5 

percent or more to visibility impairment 

at the two Minnesota Class I areas. A 

contribution of 5 percent was 

considered by the State of Minnesota to 

be significant. The LADCO trajectory 

analysis estimated contributions from 

emissions from the State of Iowa to be 

approximately 7.4 percent at Boundary 

Waters and approximately 10.2 percent 

at Voyageurs. The CENRAP PSAT 

modeling estimated contributions from 

emissions from the State of Iowa to be 

approximately 3.5 percent at Boundary 

Waters and approximately 3.8 percent at 

Voyageurs. 

In its letter, the State of Minnesota 

asked the State of Iowa to: ‘‘* * * 

evaluate further reductions of SO2 from 

electric generating units (EGU) in order 

to reduce SO2 emissions by 2018 to a 

rate that is more comparable to the 

emissions rate projected for 2018 for 

EGU sources in Minnesota, 

approximately 0.25 lbs/MMBtu.’’ The 

State of Minnesota also asked the State 

of Iowa to make a commitment to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10Appendix Y of 40 CFR Part 51-States should 

exercise judgment in deciding whether the 

following pollutants impair visibility in an area: (4) 

Volatile organic compounds (VOC), and (5) 

Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A state should 

use its best judgment in deciding whether VOC or 

ammonia emissions from a source are likely to have 

an impact on visibility in an area. Certain types of 

VOC emissions, for example, are more likely to 

form secondary organic aerosols than others. 

Similarly, controlling ammonia emissions in some 

areas may not have a significant impact on 

visibility. A state need not provide a formal 

showing of an individual decision that a source of 

VOC or ammonia emissions is not subject to BART 

review. Because air quality modeling may not be 

feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia, 

a state should also exercise its judgment in 

assessing the degree of visibility impacts due to 

emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or 

ammonia compounds. A state should fully 

document the basis for judging that a VOC or 

ammonia source merits BART review, including its 

assessment of the source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment. 

review, by 2013, the potential emission 

reductions that could be gained from 

control of industrial, commercial, and 

institutional (ICI) boilers and other 

point sources (such as reciprocating 

engines and turbines). The State of Iowa 

responded to the State of Minnesota in 

a letter dated November 1, 2007, 

communicating that it would not 

commit to evaluate further reductions of 

SO2 from EGUs because the State was 

participating in the CAIR and because 

the State of Iowa had concerns with the 

State of Minnesota’s interpretations of 

the LADCO/Minnesota four-factor 

analysis for reasonable progress. The 

State of Minnesota relied upon 

information from its four-factor analysis 

as an appendix to its request letter. The 

State of Iowa considered the State of 

Minnesota’s cost per deciview 

improvement figures, in a range of 

approximately $3 billion/dv to $3.3 

billion/dv, to be unreasonable for SO2

control beyond CAIR for EGUs in the 

State of Iowa. The State of Iowa also 

considered the State of Minnesota’s 

dollar per deciview figures, in a range 

of approximately $2.8 billion/dv to $3.4 

billion/dv, to be unreasonable for 

control of ICIs. The State explained that 

a similar argument could be made for 

reciprocating engines and combustion 

engines. 

The State of Iowa also questioned the 

State of Minnesota’s use of the LADCO 

trajectory analysis to determine 

significance of emissions from 

surrounding States because the 

trajectory analysis was based upon 

theoretical air flow and did not account 

for chemical reactions in the 

atmosphere that is accounted for in the 

CENRAP PSAT modeling. Because the 

CENRAP PSAT modeling indicated that 

emissions from the State of Iowa 

contribute less than 5 percent to 

impairment at Minnesota Class I areas, 

the State of Iowa did not consider 

emissions from sources within its 

boundaries to be significant 

(considering the State of Minnesota’s 

significance threshold of 5 percent). 

Iowa determined that additional 

controls were unsupported at this first 

stage of the regional haze rule, because 

Minnesota did not request that controls 

be installed on specific sources; did not 

provide justification on how such 

controls would lead to visibility 

improvement at the Minnesota Class I 

areas; did not provide documentation or 

otherwise consult with Iowa regarding 

any specific visibility improvement at 

the Minnesota Class I areas which 

would result from controlling Iowa 

sources; and because of the cost and 

visibility issues mentioned above. 

However on page 38 of the SIP, the State 

of Iowa does commit to continued 

consultation with Minnesota in the 

future on issues involving regional haze 

as requested and warranted. EPA 

believes that this satisfies the 

requirement for consultation between 

these two States. 

The State of Michigan wrote the State 

of Iowa a letter, dated October 26, 2007, 

stating that it was not asking other 

States to reduce emissions for purposes 

of meeting the requirements of the RHR. 

EPA believes that this satisfies the 

requirement for consultation between 

these two States. 

In summary, the State of Iowa 

consulted both directly and through the 

RPO process with the States on which 

Iowa sources may have an effect. EPA 

proposes to find that Iowa met the 

consultation requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv) and has addressed in its 

plan all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of emission reductions impacting 

visibility in Class I areas. 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

F. BART 

In the BART determination process, 

States must address all significant 

visibility impairing pollutants. The most 

significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. As 

indicated by the BART Guidelines, a 

State should use its best judgment in 

determining whether VOCs, ammonia 

(NH3) or ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in particular Class I areas.10

Iowa conducted a quantitative analysis 

of emissions inventory data to show that 

Iowa point source NH3 and VOC 

emissions do not cause or contribute to 

any visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. This analysis is described in the 

TSD for this rulemaking, and EPA 

agrees with this conclusion. 

i. BART-Eligible Sources 

For an emission source to be 

identified as BART-eligible, the State 

used these criteria from the BART 

Guidelines: (1) One or more emissions 

units at the facility fit within one of the 

26 categories listed in the BART 

Guidelines; (2) the emission unit was in 

existence on August 7, 1977 and began 

operation at some point on or after 

August 7, 1962; and (3) the limited 

potential emissions from all emission 

units identified in the previous two 

items were 250 tons or more per year of 

any of these visibility-impairing 

pollutants: SO2, NOX, or PM10. 

To identify the sources that met the 

criteria above, Iowa required sources to 

self identify as BART-eligible by rule 

(Iowa Administrative Code 567–22.9 

Special Requirements for Visibility 

Protection) on a form supplied by the 

State. The State reviewed all in-house 

permitting, Title V databases, and the 

submitted forms to determine if a source 

met the criteria explained above. This 

process is outlined in detail in 

Appendix 9 of the SIP. The twenty 

seven BART-eligible facilities identified 

are listed in Table 4. EPA proposes to 

find that the State appropriately 

identified the BART-eligible units in the 

State. 

TABLE 4—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STATE OF IOWA

Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Electric Plant Individually Greater than 250 MMBtu/ 

hour.

Cedar Falls Utilities ................................... 07–02–005 Unit #7 (EU10, 1A). 

Central Iowa Power Cooperative 

(CIPCO)—Summit Lake Station.

88–01–004 Combustion turbines (EU1, EU1G, EU2, 

EU2G). 

Central Iowa Power Cooperative 

(CIPCO)—Fair Station.

70–08–003 Unit #2 (EU2 & EU 2G). 

City of Ames—Steam Electric Plant ......... 85–01–006 Boiler #7 (EU2). 

Interstate Power and Light—Burlington .... 29–01–013 Main plant boiler. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11983 

11The method, originally developed by the North 

Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, is a tool to eliminate distant, 

insignificant emission sources from ambient 

assessments submitted under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The Q/d 

method determines a source to be insignificant if 

the allowable emissions in tons per year (Q) divided 

by a constant times the distance in kilometers (d) 

is greater than a value of 1. For example, North 

Carolina uses a constant of 20, which was 

determined empirically. Therefore, a source could 

be considered insignificant if its emissions divided 

by 20 times its distance, in km, from the nearest 

Class I area is less than 1. For this application, for 

determining exemption from BART, the combined 

emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 of a BARTeligible unit could be divided by 20 times the 

distance to the nearest Class I area. If that quotient 

is less than 1, the source would not be subject to 

BART. If a source is not found to be exempt under 

this approach, the CALPUFF screening analysis 

could still be used for an exemption determination. 

Page 25196 of 69 FR 25183. 

12This is discussed on pages 3 and 11 of the 

State’s ‘‘Variegated Protocol in Support of Best 

Available Retrofit Technology Determinations’’. 

TABLE 4—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STATE OF IOWA—Continued 

Interstate Power and Light—Lansing ....... 03–03–001 Boiler #4 Sixteen units total. 

Interstate Power and Light—ML Kapp ..... 23–01–014 Boiler #2. Six units total. 

Interstate Power and Light—Prairie Creek 57–01–042 Boiler #4. Fourteen units total. 

MidAmerican Energy Company—Council 

Bluffs.

78–01–026 Boiler #3 (EU003). 

MidAmerican Energy Company—Neal 

North.

97–04–010 Boiler #1–3 (EU001–EU003). 

MidAmerican Energy Company—Neal 

South.

97–04–011 Boiler #4 (EU003). 

Muscatine Power and Water .................... 70–01–011 Boiler #8. 

Pella Municipal Power Plant ..................... 63–02–005 Boilers #6–8. 

Chemical Process Plant ............................ Equistar Chemicals ................................... 23–01–004 301 emission units. 

Koch Nitrogen Company .......................... 94–01–005 Ammonia vapor flares and primary reformer/auxiliary boiler. 8 units total. 

Monsanto Company Muscatine ................ 70–01–008 Boilers #5–7. 57 emission units total. 

Terra Nitrogen Port Neal Comp ............... 97–01–030 Boiler B & auxiliary boiler. 

Petroleum Storage and Transfer Units 

with a Total Storage.

BP—Bettendorf Terminal .......................... 82–02–024 Truck loading. 

BP—Des Moines Terminal ....................... 77–01–158 Truck loading. 

Portland Cement Plant .............................. Holcim (US) Inc. ....................................... 17–01–009 109 emission units. 

Fossil Fuel-fired Boiler .............................. ADM .......................................................... 23–01–006 #7 & 8 boilers. These boilers will permanently shut down by 9/13/08. 

Iron and Steel Mills ................................... Bloomfield Foundry, Inc ............................ 26–01–001 18 emission units. 

Griffin Pipe Products Co. .......................... 78–01–012 10 emission units. 

John Deere Foundry Waterloo ................. 07–01–010 37 emission units. 

Keokuk Steel Casings, A Matrix Metals 

Company LLC.

56–01–025 67 emission units. 

The Dexter Company ............................... 51–01–005 Tumblers 5 & 6. 

Secondary Metal Production ..................... Alcoa, Inc. ................................................. 82–01–002 Hot line mill. 87 emissions units total. 

ii. BART-Subject Sources 

Of the twenty seven BART-eligible 

facilities, thirteen are fossil-fuel fired 

EGUs, and as such, are subject to CAIR 

for NOX and SO2. As noted in EPA’s 

separate notice proposing revisions to 

the regional haze rule (76 FR 82219, 

December 30, 2011) a number of States, 

including Iowa, relied on CAIR to 

satisfy the BART requirements for SO2

and NOX, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Prior to the CAIR remand, 

the State’s reliance on CAIR to satisfy 

BART for NOX and SO2 for affected 

CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). As 

explained above, we are not proposing 

to take action in today’s rulemaking on 

issues associated with Iowa’s reliance 

on CAIR in its regional haze SIP, 

including BART for SO2 and NOX for 

EGUs. In a separate action, EPA has 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of Iowa’s 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 EPA of CAIR. 76 FR 82219. 

Comments on that proposed 

determination may be directed to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729. The PM BART evaluation for 

these sources is described in section 

V.F.2 below. 

1. Non-EGUs 

Iowa used three screening approaches 

to determine if the remaining fourteen 

non-EGU sources identified in table 4 

were subject to BART: 

• Q/d (‘‘Q’’ being allowable 

emissions, in tons per year, and ‘‘d’’ 

representing the distance in km to the 

nearest Class I area, multiplied by a 

prescribed constant);11

• A variety of assessments using 

CAMx photochemical model (a regional 

scale model); and 

• An emissions inventory analysis. 

The RHR established thresholds 

defining the terms ‘‘cause’’ and 

‘‘contribute’’. A source is said to 

‘‘cause’’ visibility impairment if its 

impact is equal to or greater than 1.0 dv 

at any Class I area. A source is said to 

‘‘contribute’’ to visibility impairment if 

its impacts are equal to or greater than 

0.5 dv at any Class I area. Although the 

RHR affords States the opportunity to 

adopt a more stringent deminimis 

threshold, the State of Iowa chose not to 

do so. However, for its three step BARTsubject screening analyses, the State did 

utilize a threshold that considered the 

number of days a source’s impact was 

equal to or greater than 0.5 dv. The State 

chose seven days for this threshold.12

The State’s ‘‘Variegated Protocol in 

Support of Best Available Retrofit 

Technology Determinations—May 

2006’’ explains that if the State were to 

find no maximum delta-deciview (ddv) 

values greater than 0.5 dv from any of 

the three screening methods, it would 

provide a statewide exemption of the 

BART sources assessed in the given 

scenario. Should initial cumulative 

modeling quantify ddv impacts 

exceeding 0.5 dv, the State would refine 

its analyses. For each BART eligible 

source, information regarding Q/d 

analyses, CALPUFF model plant 

evaluation, and CAMx results were 

assembled and utilized in a weight-ofmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species nonsteady-state puff dispersion model that simulates 

the effects of time- and space-varying 

meteorological conditions on pollution transport, 

transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be 

applied on scales of tens to hundreds of kilometers. 

It includes algorithms for subgrid scale effects (such 

as terrain impingement), as well as longer range 

effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet 

scavenging and dry deposition, chemical 

transformation, and visibility effects of particulate 

matter concentrations). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff. 

14http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf. 

evidence approach in the final subjectto-BART determination. If a unit was 

not clearly identifiable as either BARTsubject or exempt from the BART 

determination process, the State 

provided a case-by-case discussion. 

Table 5 lists each of the fourteen nonEGU BART-eligible sources analyzed for 

Q/d estimates, where ‘‘Q’’ is the sum of 

NOX, SO2 and PM10 emissions (PM2.5

direct emission estimates were not 

available at the time of the calculations 

were performed by the State) and ‘‘d’’ is 

the distance between the source and the 

nearest Class I area in km. The Q/d 

estimates were completed using both 

actual and potential emissions and were 

multiplied by three different constants 

(20, 10, and 5). Iowa used a 1.0 

threshold as its Q/d screening threshold. 

Note that potential emissions include 

only BART-eligible units while actual 

emissions represent facility wide totals, 

thus in certain cases actual emissions 

may exceed potentials. 

Based on the six Q/d calculations the 

State categorized each of the fourteen 

non-EGU BART-eligible sources into 

three categories: (1) Those sources that 

clearly exceed the 1.0 threshold, (2) 

sources well below the 1.0 threshold 

and 3) those sources with mixed results. 

Table 5 shows that only ADM-Clinton 

and Holcim, Inc. clearly exceed the 1.0 

threshold in nearly each of the six Q/d 

calculations. 

TABLE 5—NEAREST CLASS I AREA & Q/D VALUES FOR NON-EGU BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES

Facility name Nearest 

Class I 

Distance 

(km) 

BART Units potential emissions (tpy) Facility wide actual emissions (tpy) 

SO2 NOX PM10 Q/20d Q/10d Q/5d SO2 NOX PM10 Q/20d Q/10d Q/5d 

Equistar Chemical .......................... MING ........ 531.2 3,883 3,433 258 0.71 1.43 2.85 1 728 52 0.07 0.15 0.29 

Koch Nitrogen Company ................ BOWA ...... 615.4 40 1,399 23 0.12 0.24 0.48 0 442 20 0.04 0.08 0.15 

Monsanto-Muscatine ...................... MING ........ 486.8 430 168 81 0.07 0.14 0.28 465 192 8 0.07 0.14 0.27 

Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal ................ BADL ........ 487.6 1 916 325 0.13 0.25 0.51 1 461 33 0.05 0.10 0.20 

BP-Bettendorf ................................. MING ........ 499.9 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 

BP-Des Moines ............................... HEGL ....... 547.0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Holcim, Inc. ..................................... BOWA ...... 527.0 28,715 4,738 1,000 3.27 6.54 13.07 3,826 2,813 190 0.65 1.30 2.59 

ADM-Clinton ................................... MING ........ 531.9 6,051 2,117 507 0.82 1.63 3.26 6,479 5,003 1,272 1.20 2.40 4.80

Bloomfield Foundry, Inc. ................. HEGL ....... 448.8 136 68 605 0.09 0.18 0.36 1 0 22 0.00 0.01 0.01 

Griffin Pipe Products ...................... HEGL ....... 563.6 190 235 211 0.06 0.11 0.23 2 88 111 0.02 0.04 0.07 

John Deere Foundry-Waterloo ....... BOWA ...... 588.8 0 0 285 0.02 0.05 0.10 9 21 99 0.01 0.02 0.04 

Keokuk Steel Casing ...................... MING ........ 392.0 11 72 554 0.08 0.16 0.32 4 9 67 0.01 0.02 0.04 

The Dexter Company ..................... MING ........ 468.9 0 0 541 0.06 0.12 0.23 29 3 112 0.02 0.03 0.06 

Alcoa, Inc. ....................................... MING ........ 501.8 15 400 1,092 0.15 0.30 0.60 2 137 209 0.03 0.07 0.14 

A majority of the non-EGU facilities 

were well below the 1.0 screening 

threshold in all six Q/d tests. Eleven 

facilities, listed in table 6, yield Q/d 

values well below 1.0 at even the most 

stringent potential to emit Q/5d 

evaluation. The State subsequently 

determined that these sources were 

unlikely to be subject to BART. Iowa 

indicates, on page 13 of Appendix 9 to 

the SIP, that this conclusion is further 

supported through evaluation of the Q/ 

d values using facility-wide actual 

emissions. The actual emission Q/5d 

values average 0.09, with the upper 

limit at Monsanto Company-Muscatine 

of only 0.27. The State determined that 

these low values suggested any emission 

reductions would be insignificant at the 

nearest Class I area to the source. 

TABLE 6—NON-EGU BART-ELIGIBLE

FACILITIES SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW

ALL Q/D SCREENING TESTS

Koch Nitrogen Company 

Monsanto- Muscatine 

Terra Nitrogen-Port Neal 

BP-Bettendorf 

BP-Des Moines 

Bloomfield Foundry, Inc. 

Griffin Pipe Products 

John Deere Foundry-Waterloo 

Keokuk Steel Casing 

The Dexter Company 

Alcoa, Inc. 

Equistar Chemical is the only facility 

listed in Table 5 above where the results 

are not clear cut. Considering potential 

emissions, the Q/20d value is 0.71 with 

Q/10d and Q/5d exceeding 1.0. Actual 

emissions reveal that the most 

conservative value, Q/5d, remains well 

below 1.0 at 0.29. Equistar Chemical 

reported facility wide SO2 emissions in 

2002 at one tpy, with NOX emissions of 

728 tpy. As shown in Table 5, the 

nearest Class I area receptor is located 

at Mingo, at a distance of approximately 

531 km. The transport distance in 

combination with low actual emissions 

produced the low Q/d value for Equistar 

Chemical. Under these circumstances, 

Equistar Chemical is unlikely to be 

subject to BART. However, the State 

considered results from additional 

analyses, described below, before 

making any BART exemptions based 

solely on Q/d calculations. 

The BART guidelines indicate that 

when determining if a source is BARTsubject, CALPUFF, or other appropriate 

models, can be used to determine if an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas.13 The State explains in 

Appendix 9 to the SIP, and in its 

Variegated Protocol, that because each 

BART-eligible unit located within the 

State was an average of 516 km (with a 

minimum of 392 km) away from the 

nearest Class I area, it experienced 

difficulties using the CALPUFF model 

to determine if a unit was BART-subject, 

due to the tendency of CALPUFF to 

over-predict single source contributions. 

The State did use CALPUFF as the 

modeling tool for its model plant 

approach described below, in the TSD 

for this rulemaking, and in section 5.2 

of Appendix 9 to the SIP. 

For the model plant analysis, the State 

utilized combined (SO2 and NOX) 

emission rates of 5,000 tpy and 3,000 

tpy per source because of the distance 

from the sources to the Class I areas. 

The State chose to use the following 

Class I areas based on their distance 

from Iowa sources: BADL, BOWA, 

VOYA, MING, HEGL, ISLE and SENE. 

Natural background concentrations were 

extracted from the EPA’s Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

under the Regional Haze Program.14. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11985 

15Annual average natural background 

concentrations are not strictly Class I area specific. 

Alternatively, sites are assigned one of two datasets: 

Eastern or Western. Of the seven Class I areas 

examined within the Iowa domain, all are 

considered Eastern sites with the exception of the 

Badlands. Page 23 of Appendix 9 to the SIP. 

16For regional haze applications, regional scale 

modeling typically involves use of a photochemical 

grid model that is capable of simulating aerosol 

chemistry, transport, and deposition of airborne 

pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone. 

Regional scale air quality models are generally 

applied for geographic scales ranging from a 

multistate to the continental scale. Because of the 

design and intended applications of grid models, 

they may not be appropriate for BART assessments, 

so States should consult with the appropriate EPA 

Regional Office prior to carrying out any such 

modeling. 

During the State’s analyses, each 

model plant simulation required 

fourteen iterations: Two natural 

background scenarios across seven Class 

I areas. Results for each Class I area 

assessment were tabulated and ranked 

individually. Both maximum and 98th 

percentile values were considered when 

determining the levels at which 

emissions may cause (dv impacts greater 

than or equal to 1.0) or contribute (dv 

impacts greater than or equal to 0.5) to 

visibility impairment. 

The results of the analysis (given on 

page 28 and 29 of Appendix 9 to the 

SIP) showed that the model plant, with 

5,000 tpy of NOX and SO2 combined 

(and 50 tpy of PM2.5) did not yield any 

dv impacts greater than 0.5 dv at the 

98th percentile as compared against 

annually averaged natural background 

conditions. In the years 2002 and 2003, 

a maximum of five days exceed the 0.5 

dv impact threshold, occurring at the 

BADL, likely due to utilization of the 

cleaner Western natural background 

conditions.15 During 2004, six days 

exceed the 0.5 dv impact threshold. The 

remaining six Class I area evaluations 

yield counts less than or equal to five 

days with impacts greater than 0.5 dv. 

Considering individual daily maximum 

impacts, 2002 values remain near the 

0.5 dv level; slightly higher maximum 

impacts occur in 2003. In 2004 

maximum impacts were consistently 

above 1.0 dv. When compared against 

the 20 percent best natural background 

conditions, each year, for each site, had 

more than seven days with maximum 

impacts exceeding 0.5 dv. As expected, 

maximum individual daily impacts 

show a corresponding increase versus 

annually averaged natural background 

conditions. 

The results of the model plant 

analysis with 3,000 tpy of NOX and SO2

combined (and 50 tpy of PM2.5) showed 

that the 98th percentile is never 

exceeded, regardless of the natural 

background scenario. Additionally, at 

3,000 tpy of NOX and SO2 emissions 

combined, maximum impacts for the 

years 2002 and 2003, as compared 

against annually averaged natural 

background conditions, do not exceed 

0.5 dv. The year 2004 does produce 

impacts above 0.5 dv. Two days above 

0.5 dv are modeled for the BADL, and 

one day above 0.5 dv are shown for the 

remaining Class I areas. The 20 percent 

best natural background conditions— 

maximum daily impacts remain below 

0.5 dv for all but SENE in 2002. In 2003, 

impacts greater than 0.5 dv are found for 

each site, but occur on no more than 

two days. Again, emissions in 2004 

result in the dv highest impacts, but the 

impacts do not exceed the 98th 

percentile. 

Based upon these results, the State 

concluded that any BART-eligible 

source that emitted less than 3,000 tpy 

of combined NOX, SO2 and PM2.5 would 

likely be exempt from being BARTsubject. At the 3,000 tpy level, 

evaluation against the stringent 20 

percent best natural background 

conditions yields no more than five 

days with impacts exceeding 0.5 dv. 

Utilizing the emissions data (provided 

in table 5), the State determined that 

eleven of the fourteen non-EGU BARTeligible sources would remain well 

below the 3,000 tpy combined potential 

to emit. These happen to be the same 

facilities already identified in table 6 as 

being below the Q/d screening 

thresholds. 

As a final tool to help in the BARTsubject screening process, the State 

utilized the CAMx regional modeling 

system to model cumulative impacts 

across all BART-eligible sources at Class 

I areas. As set forth in the BART 

guidelines, a State may consider 

exempting all its BART-eligible sources 

from BART by conducting analyses that 

show that all of the emissions from 

BART-eligible sources in the State, 

taken together, are not reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute 

visibility impairment. To make such a 

showing, a State could use CALPUFF or 

another appropriate dispersion model to 

evaluate the impacts of individual 

sources on downwind Class I areas, 

aggregating those impacts to determine 

the collective contribution from allBART eligible sources in the State. A 

State with a sufficiently large number of 

BART-eligible sources could also make 

such a showing using a photochemical 

grid model.16 EPA determined that the 

option of allowing a State to 

demonstrate that the full group of 

BART-eligible sources in the State does 

not contribute to visibility impairment 

would, by default, satisfy an individual 

source contribution assessment. As 

previously discussed, the State had 

concerns with the use of CALPUFF, so 

it elected to use the photochemical 

model CAMx to model cumulative 

impacts of all BART-eligible sources 

across Class I areas. 

Similar to the Q/d analysis, the State 

utilized a 0.5 dv impact as screening a 

threshold of the CAMx modeling 

results. For all cumulative CAMx 

modeling scenarios, the scenario design 

involved zeroing the actual point source 

emissions of BART-eligible sources on a 

facility-wide basis. In zeroing BARTeligible facility emissions, emphasis was 

placed upon the elevated point source 

emissions. The BART-eligible source list 

included distinctions for CAIR versus 

non-CAIR units (in lieu of CAIR as 

BART). This analysis is described in 

detail in the TSD for this rulemaking 

and in appendix 9 of the SIP. 

In summary, considering a 12 km 

grid, emissions from non-EGU BARTeligible sources and natural background 

conditions, the maximum impact 

modeled is 0.63 dv (BOWA) with a 

maximum of only two days above the 

0.5 dv threshold (ISLE). Under the 20 

percent best natural background 

conditions, the maximum impact 

increases to 0.93 dv (BOWA), and the 

maximum frequency of impacts greater 

than 0.5 dv is five days (ISLE). Because 

there were impacts greater than the 0.5 

dv threshold, the State could not 

provide a blanket exemption for all nonEGU BART-eligible sources considering 

just the results of the CAMx modeling. 

The State did not consider these 

analyses to be definitive so it considered 

actual emissions of visibility impairing 

pollutants from the sources evaluated in 

the modeling. Because eleven of the 

non-EGU BART-eligible sources (the 

same eleven as previously identified in 

table 6) comprise approximately 11 

percent (2,547 tpy of SO2, NOX and PM) 

of the total of actual emissions (22,911 

tpy of SO2, NOX and PM) from all 

fourteen non-EGU BART-eligible 

sources, the State determined that these 

eleven sources were unlikely to play a 

significant role in the cumulative 

modeled visibility impacts. 

Although Iowa did not strictly follow 

the guidelines for exempting a source, 

specifically with respect to modeling a 

BART-eligible source using maximum 

actual emissions, in this case EPA has 

determined that Iowa’s alternative 

analysis should result in an acceptable 

conclusion to exempt these eleven 

sources for the following reasons. First, 

the State’s analysis used both actual 

emissions on a facility-wide basis and 

potential emissions for the BARTeligible units. When looking at the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17https://aqbweb.iowadnr.gov/data/23/2301006/ 

05A314P.pdf. 

18The applicable State permit numbers are 05–A– 

313–P, 05–A–314–P, 05–A–315–P for the coal-fired 

boilers, and 05–A–316–P, 05–A–317–P for the 

natural gas fired boilers. 

actual emissions facility-wide, for many 

of the sources, it was clear that had the 

maximum actual emissions been 

modeled using CALPUFF, the results 

would indicate minimal visibility 

impacts. This was apparent when 

comparing the modeled plant analysis 

emission inputs with the actual 

emissions. In almost all cases the sum 

of the actual emissions of visibility 

impairing emissions were significantly 

less than those used in the model plant 

analysis. The same is also true when 

looking at the potential emissions for 

many of these sources. Given that most 

of these non-EGU units do not have 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems (CEMS) that can be used for an 

accurate calculation of actual maximum 

24-hour emission rate, using both the 

actual annual emissions facility-wide 

and potential emissions for the BARTeligible units provides confidence that 

these sources can be excluded as BART 

sources. Second, the Q/d analysis Iowa 

used provided a good indication of 

those sources where additional analysis 

might be warranted. Although we have 

not specifically relied on the Q/d 

analysis for our approval of BART 

exemptions, we do believe it was 

informative and the use of Q/5d is fairly 

conservative for this type of an analysis. 

We believe that the State reasonably 

demonstrated that the eleven non-EGU 

BART-eligible sources (listed above in 

table 6) are not BART-subject. The 

remaining discussion of this section will 

focus on the three remaining non-EGU 

BART-eligible facilities that were not 

exempted: Equistar Chemical, Holcim, 

and ADM-Clinton. 

Equistar Chemical’s potential and 

actual emissions are dominated by 

VOCs, and not SO2, NOX or PM. While 

potential emissions of SO2 and NOX

exceed the 5,000 tpy model plant 

threshold, the actual emissions are far 

below the 3,000 tpy threshold—729 tons 

per year of NOX and SO2 combined. As 

such, the State determined that Equistar 

Chemical would not contribute impacts 

exceeding 0.5 dv, and was therefore not 

BART-subject. EPA agrees with this 

determination. 

Both Holcim and ADM-Clinton fail 

the Q/d and CALPUFF model plant 

analyses. Almost all Q/d metrics exceed 

the 1.0 significance level, while SO2 and 

NOX emissions (potentials and actual 

emissions) exceed both the 3,000 and 

5,000 tpy scenarios examined with the 

CALPUFF model plant application. The 

State decided to look at both ADMClinton and Holcim on a case-by-case 

basis. 

As mentioned previously, the State 

found the uncertainties of using the 

CALPUFF modeling system for 

determining single source visibility 

impacts from sources far removed from 

Class I areas very challenging. The State 

decided to use an alternative process, 

scaling the cumulative modeling 

impacts according to emission rates. 

The State utilized the maximum dv 

impacts from the most relevant CAMx 

modeling scenario, at the most stringent 

20 percent best natural background 

conditions, a value of 0.93 dv to scale 

actual SO2, NOX and PM emissions for 

both sources. The State zeroed out the 

actual SO2, NOX and PM emissions in 

the following scenario. Because 

Holcim’s SO2, NOX and PM emissions 

account for 6,828 tpy of the 22,911 tpy 

total non-EGU BART-eligible sources’ 

SO2, NOX and PM emissions, Holcim’s 

proportional share would account for 30 

percent of the emissions. If ADMClinton’s SO2, NOX and PM emissions 

account for 12,755 tpy of the 22,911 tpy 

total non-EGU BART-eligible sources’ 

SO2, NOX and PM emissions, ADMClinton would account for 56 percent of 

the emissions. The State then scaled the 

visibility impact attributable to Holcim 

and ADM-Clinton. If the maximum 

visibility impact from all non-EGU 

BART-eligible sources was figured to be 

0.93 dv, and Holcim was found to 

contribute approximately 30 percent to 

that impairment, it could be estimated 

that Holcim would contribute 

approximately 0.28 dv visibility 

impairment (below the 0.5 dv 

threshold). Using the same method, 

ADM-Clinton was found to contribute 

approximately 56 percent to the 

maximum visibility impairment, or 

approximately 0.52 dv, above the 0.5 dv 

threshold. The State found that this 

additional information supported a 

determination that Holcim did not cause 

or contribute to visibility impairment at 

any Class I area, and was not BARTsubject, however, the same 

determination for ADM Clinton could 

not be made according to this analysis. 

As described previously, from the 

three screening approaches the State 

used, ADM-Clinton could not be ruled 

out from contributing to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas. However, at 

the time the State drafted the SIP, ADMClinton was going through a PSD 

permitting activity to construct new 

boilers. In the permit for the new boilers 

(Permit 05–A–314), ADM-Clinton was 

required to shut down boilers 1–14 no 

later than 180 days after the startup of 

the new boilers.17 This includes the two 

BART-eligible boilers, numbers 7 and 8. 

We have confirmed with the State that 

these boilers have indeed shut down. In 

the PSD permit for the new boilers that 

replaced boilers 7 and 8, the facility was 

required to install and operate a 

baghouse, selective non-catalytic 

reduction, and limestone injection flue 

gas desulfurization on the new boiler 

units (three coal burning and two 

natural gas; five in total). The 

construction permit limited the 

emissions of the replacement boiler 

units through an annual cap applicable 

across all five new units. SO2 emissions 

are not to exceed 3,629 tpy and NOX

emissions are not to exceed 1,445 tpy. 

These limits represent best available 

control technology (BACT) emission 

rates as required under the PSD 

program.18 Because the BART-eligible 

boilers were permanently shut down 

pursuant to an enforceable PSD permit, 

and the replacement boilers satisfy 

BACT, the State concluded that ADMClinton was not subject to BART. EPA 

agrees with this determination. 

EPA believes the State’s approach to 

the photochemical modeling analysis 

does not fully account for the non-linear 

aspects of photochemical modeling and 

does not fully acknowledge that 

modeled impacts will not necessarily be 

directly proportional to the modeled 

emissions. However, EPA believes it is 

unlikely that Holcim will have visibility 

impacts on a Class I area greater than 0.5 

dv for the following reasons. First, all 

modeled sources, including Holcim, are 

located a significant distance from any 

Class I area, with Holcim being 527 km 

from the nearest Class I area. Second, 

the modeling inputs showed that 

emissions from Holcim constituted only 

30 percent of total emissions from the 

modeled sources. Third, the maximum 

modeled impacts from this group of 

sources at any Class I area using average 

natural background conditions is 0.64 

dv with at most 2 days of impacts over 

0.5 dv. Fourth, looking at all the 

maximum modeled impacts at all seven 

Class I areas shows an average 

maximum impact of 0.44 dv, indicating 

that no single source is likely the cause 

for the majority of impacts at any single 

Class I area. Finally, ADM-Clinton 

represents 56 percent of the visibility 

impairing emissions of the modeled 

sources and this source’s BART eligible 

units have been permanently shut 

down, thus EPA anticipates impacts 

from the remaining group of sources 

would have less than a 0.5 dv impact. 

Based on these factors, EPA believes 

that State adequately demonstrated that 

Holcim does not cause or contribute to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11987 

19http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2002

inventory.html. 

20http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php. 

21The CENRAP modeling emissions inventory 

consists of several distinct datasets: the 2002 

basecase for model performance evaluation, 2002 

typical, 2018 basecase, and the 2018 control 

strategy scenario. The inventory was refined 

through several rounds of CENRAP workgroup 

review and revision, beginning with the initial 

BaseA version and culminating in the BaseG 

inventory. 

visibility impairment in any Class I 

areas, and therefore is not subject to 

BART. 

2. EGU BART Evaluation for PM 

As the State relied on CAIR to address 

NOX and SO2 emissions, only an 

evaluation for PM was conducted for 

BART-eligible EGUs. There is no PM 

presumptive emission rate for EGUs 

with a capacity of 750 MW or greater. 

The State again relied on its CALPUFF 

model plant analysis for analyzing EGU 

PM emissions. Model year 2004 was 

selected in order to generate maximum 

impacts (the State’s analysis showed 

that 2004 data generated impacts that 

exceeded 2002 and 2003 data). Two 

scenarios were completed using 

emission rates of 10,000 and 5,000 tpy 

of PM, NOX, or SO2 emissions. The 

model plant configuration was modified 

to reflect idealized EGU stack 

parameters, obtained from the EPA’s 

CALPUFF analysis in support of the 

June 2005 changes to the RHR. 

Graphical results are given on page 46 

of Appendix 9 to the SIP. 

No impacts above 0.5 dv were 

observed at any Class I area under 

annually averaged natural background 

conditions with PM emissions of 10,000 

tpy. Under the 20 percent best natural 

background conditions no impacts 

exceeding the 98th percentile occur. 

Reducing the emissions to 5,000 tpy, no 

impacts above 0.5 dv were produced 

under annually averaged background 

conditions or 20 percent best natural 

background conditions. In terms of 

scale, Iowa’s largest PM10 source (an 

EGU that is not BART-eligible) emits 

3,174 tpy (based on a facility-wide 

value), approximately 36.5 percent 

below the emission rate which yielded 

no visibility impacts. Based upon these 

results the State concluded, and the 

EPA agrees, that PM emissions from 

BART-eligible EGUs in the State of Iowa 

would not cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any nearby 

Class I area, and are therefore not 

subject to BART for PM. 

G. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

States to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in section 

III. F. of this action. Under EPA’s RAVI 

regulations, the RAVI portion of a State 

SIP must address any integral vistas 

identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.304. An integral vista is defined in 40 

CFR 51.301 as a ‘‘view perceived from 

within the mandatory Class I Federal 

area of a specific landmark or panorama 

located outside the boundary of the 

mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

Visibility in any mandatory Class I 

Federal area includes any integral vista 

associated with that area. Iowa has no 

Class I areas, and FLMs did not identify 

any integral vistas affected by Iowa 

sources. Therefore, the Iowa regional 

haze SIP submittal is not required to 

address the two requirements regarding 

coordination of the regional haze SIP 

with the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. 

H. Monitoring Strategy 

Because it does not host a Class I area, 

Iowa is not required to develop a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting regional 

haze impairment that is representative 

of Class I areas within the State. 

However, Iowa is required to establish 

procedures by which monitoring data 

and other information is used to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to regional haze 

impairment at Class I areas outside of 

the State. 

There are two IMPROVE monitoring 

protocol sites (sites that are not 

managed directly by IMPROVE, but by 

the operating agency) which are 

operated in the State. One is located at 

Lake Viking State Park in southwestern 

Iowa, and the second is located at Lake 

Sugema Wildlife Management Area in 

southeastern Iowa. The monitors began 

operation in June 2002. Descriptions of 

these monitoring sites and methods for 

data validation can be found in Chapter 

6 of the State’s Regional Haze SIP. The 

State has provided a commitment in 

Chapter 6 of the SIP to maintain the 

IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites 

contingent upon continued national 

funding. 

Data from IMPROVE protocol 

monitors is analyzed by a national 

laboratory (funded via an interagency 

agreement between the EPA and the 

National Park Service) and uploaded by 

the laboratory into two publicly 

available databases at http://vista.cira.

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

cira.colostate.edu/views/. Any 

supplemental monitoring data from 

additional monitoring equipment at 

each site is publicly available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs. 

EPA believes the State’s commitments 

to utilize data from these sites, or any 

other EPA-approved monitoring 

network location, to characterize and 

model conditions within the State and 

to compare visibility conditions in the 

State to visibility impairment at Class I 

areas hosted by other States. EPA 

proposes that Iowa has satisfied the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). 

I. Emissions Inventory 

Iowa was required to develop a 

statewide emissions inventory of 

pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

This inventory must include baseline 

year emissions, emissions for the most 

recent year that data is available, and 

estimates of future year emissions. The 

State provided an inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, 

PM10, and ammonia (NH3). As required, 

the inventory includes emissions for a 

baseline year (2002), the most recent 

year for which data are available, and 

estimates of future year (2018) projected 

emissions along with a commitment to 

update the inventory periodically. 

The 2002 point source inventory was 

derived from the 2002 National 

Emission Inventory (NEI).19 All other 

source category emission inventories 

were developed by CENRAP and its 

contractors as part of the development 

of a baseline inventory for the 2002 

modeling inventory.20 A summary of 

the 2002 baseline emissions inventory 

can be found in Chapter 7 of the SIP. 

Methodologies for the development of 

the 2002 emissions inventories can be 

found in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP. 

To estimate the 2018 future year 

emissions the State grew the 2002 

emissions using the Economic Growth 

Analysis System (EGAS) 5, MOBILE 6 

and NONROAD vehicle emissions 

software. The State also used the IPM to 

forecast EGU emissions. 

As shown in table 7, the State made 

a modification to the estimated 2018 

SO2 emissions for the point source EGU 

source category. In tables 7 and 8, the 

2002 and 2018 point source EGU SO2

emissions are 135,833 and 160,733 tons 

per year (tpy), respectively. The State 

was concerned with the accuracy of the 

2018 (160,733 tpy) value. CENRAP 

utilized the ‘‘RPO version 2.1.9’’ IPM 

(referred to as IPM v2.1.9) predictions to 

generate the 2018 BaseG scenario,21 in 

which total Iowa EGU SO2 emissions 

were forecast to be approximately 

147,305 tpy. During review of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

22The ‘‘Consolidation of Emissions 

Inventories’’—Pechan Report No. 05.03.002/ 

9500.003. 

CENRAP BaseE2 modeling, errors were 

identified in the 2018 Iowa EGU 

emissions. Among the errors, certain 

EGU emissions were overestimated 

when a growth methodology was 

applied twice, once with EGAS and 

then again within IPM. Following error 

identification, corrections were 

submitted for inclusion in the BaseF 

(and subsequent BaseG) modeling 

scenarios. After the corrections, 2018 

EGU SO2 emissions totaled 151,354 tpy. 

Thus, the State believed the value of 

160,733 tpy provided through the 

emissions inventory report developed 

by a CENRAP contractor to be 

inaccurate.22 The State found that the 

corrected EGU SO2 emissions estimate 

of 151,354 tpy for 2018 is conservative, 

given updated results from IPM version 

3.0 (discussed in Chapter 11 of the SIP) 

and Iowa’s participation in CAIR. 

TABLE 7—2002 IOWA EMISSIONS SUMMARY

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Ammonia .................................................. 0 0 0 0 258,915 0 

Area .......................................................... 106,712 6,782 11,540 12,182 6.560 3,184 

Area Fire .................................................. 1,120 138 4,681 4,893 0 160 

Fugitive Dust ............................................ 0 0 38,666 193,331 0 0 

Off road .................................................... 63,694 92,595 8,904 9,707 79 9,037 

On road .................................................... 87,392 120,621 1,747 2,373 3,064 3,200 

Point EGU ................................................ 1,075 81,761 4,527 9,424 0 135,833 

Point Fire .................................................. 545 33 594 700 48 35 

Point NonEGU ......................................... 41,184 35,812 7,651 17495 3,317 51,836 

Road dust ................................................. 0 0 19,525 127,882 0 0 

Wildfire ..................................................... 5 29 218 224 0 8 

Biogenic ................................................... 408,291 25,732 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .................................................. 710,018 363,503 98,053 378,211 271,983 203,293 

TABLE 8—2018 IOWA PROJECTED EMISSIONS SUMMARY

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Ammonia .................................................. 0 0 0 0 302,012 0 

Area .......................................................... 127,849 7,476 10,677 11,510 13,304 3,224 

Area Fire .................................................. 1,120 138 4,681 4,893 0 160 

Fugitive Dust ............................................ 0 0 40,608 203,044 0 0 

Off road .................................................... 37,143 60,210 5,582 6,088 101 220 

On road .................................................... 36,404 33,975 708 708 4,225 400 

Point EGU ................................................ 1,802 65,629 9,578 11,232 713 151,354 

Point Fire .................................................. 547 33 596 702 49 36 

Point NonEGU ......................................... 56,714 40,964 10,151 21,737 5,763 42,862 

Road dust ................................................. 0 0 17,712 114,889 0 0 

Wildfire ..................................................... 5 29 218 224 0 8 

Biogenic ................................................... 408,291 25,732 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Total .................................................. 669,875 234,186 100,511 375,027 326,167 198,264 

EPA proposes that the 2002 and 2018 

statewide emissions inventories and the 

State’s method for developing the 2018 

emissions inventory meets the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) 

of the regional haze rule. 

J. Reporting Requirements 

EPA has reviewed and believes the 

State’s reporting strategy meets the 

requirements of the regional haze rule. 

The State is required to maintain 

reporting, record keeping and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility improvements. In 

communications with the EPA, Iowa 

asserts that by complying with the Air 

Emissions Reporting Rule, in addition to 

the State’s commitment (page 56, 

Chapter 12 of the SIP) to complete the 

periodic review as required in 40 CFR 

51.308(g), for which the most recent or 

most appropriate emissions data will be 

used, such as CEMS data, it has met the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR. 

The EPA believes the State’s methods of 

reporting and record keeping of 

emissions meet the requirement of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) of the RHR. 

K. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

The State of Iowa met the FLM 

consultation requirement by sending the 

draft SIP to the FLMs on November 26, 

2007, and notifying the FLMs of the 

public hearing on January 30, 2008. 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires States to 

provide a description of how they 

addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs. Iowa has provided this in 

Appendix 2.1 of the SIP. EPA believes 

that Iowa adequately responded to the 

comments received from the FLMs and 

from EPA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11989 

Regional haze SIPs must also provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the State and FLMs on the 

implementation of 40 CFR 51.308, 

including development and review of 

SIP revisions and 5-year progress 

reports, and on the implementation of 

other programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. The State of Iowa has 

committed to continuing to coordinate 

and consult with the FLMs during 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 in Class I areas. 

EPA proposes to find that the State of 

Iowa has satisfied the consultation 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year 

Progress Reports 

Iowa acknowledged the requirement 

under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to submit 

periodic progress reports and regional 

haze SIP revisions, with the first report 

due by July 31, 2018, and revisions due 

every ten years thereafter. Iowa has 

committed to meeting this requirement. 

Iowa also acknowledged the 

requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to 

submit a progress report in the form of 

a SIP revision every five years following 

this initial SIP submittal. Iowa 

committed to submitting the required 

five year SIP revision, evaluating the 

progress made towards the RPGs for 

each mandatory Class I area which may 

be affected by emissions from Iowa 

sources. Iowa committed to addressing 

all the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

(g), including a review of the changes in 

the emission inventory, a review of the 

periodic reporting requirements, and a 

determination of whether additional 

action is needed according to 40 CFR 

51.308(h). 

We propose to find that Iowa has 

satisfied the requirements to submit 

periodic SIP revisions and progress 

reports as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)– 

(h). 

V. Proposed Actions 

We propose a limited approval of 

Iowa’s March 25, 2008 SIP revision 

addressing regional haze. In a separate 

action, EPA has proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Iowa regional haze 

SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements. 76 

FR 82219. We are not proposing to take 

action in today’s rulemaking on issues 

associated with Iowa’s reliance on CAIR 

in its regional haze SIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

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

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by the EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection 

of information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

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

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, this action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis 

would constitute Federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of State 

action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base 

its actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, the EPA must select 

the most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires the EPA to 

establish a plan for informing and 

advising any small governments that 

may be significantly or uniquely 

impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action proposed does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

proposes to approve 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 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

the EPA has reason to believe may have 

a disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, the 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Karl Brooks, 

Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region 

7. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4684 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0027; FRL–9638–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert 

Air Quality Management District and 

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) and Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management District 

(YSAQMD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) emissions from glass melting 

furnaces and biomass boilers. We are 

approving local rules that regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0027, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS