***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 1 of 72

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729; FRL – ]

RIN 2060-AR05

Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to 

Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation 

Plans 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to our rules that pertain to 

the regional haze program. In this action, the EPA is proposing that 

the trading program in the recently promulgated Transport Rule, also 

known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, achieves greater 

reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas than source-specific Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) in those states covered by the 

Transport Rule. In this action, the EPA is also proposing a limited 

disapproval of the regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

that have been submitted by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas. These states 

relied on requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to 

satisfy certain regional haze requirements. To address deficiencies 

in all of the CAIR-dependent regional haze SIPs, in this action, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 2 of 72

EPA is proposing Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to replace 

reliance on the CAIR requirements in these SIPs with reliance on the 

Transport Rule as an alternative to BART. States are encouraged, at 

any time, to submit a revision to their regional haze SIP 

incorporating the requirements of the Transport Rule at which time we 

will withdraw the FIP we are proposing in this action.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 

30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Public Hearings. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing on 

or before [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], we will hold a public hearing. Please refer to 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment 

period and the public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2011-0729, by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0729.

 Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2011-0729.

 Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0729.

 Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729, U.S. Environmental Protection 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 3 of 72

Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20460. Please include a total of two copies. 

 Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West 

(Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 3334, 

Washington, D.C. 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0729. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's 

normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 

made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-

0729. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 

in the public docket without change and may be made available online 

at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 

The www.regulations.gov website 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 the EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 4 of 72

other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, avoid 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 www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, 

such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566-1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Martha Keating, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail 

code C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 5 of 72

9407; fax number: 919-541-0824; email address:

keating.martha@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

This proposed action does not directly regulate emission 

sources. It will affect state and local air pollution control 

agencies located within the geographic areas covered by the Transport 

Rule1 and whose regional haze state implementation plan relied on 

CAIR2 as an alternative to BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or 

Nitrogen Oxide (NOX)for electric generating units (EGUs) subject to 

BART requirements. Some of the EGUs located in such geographic areas 

may also be affected by the FIPs that may result from final 

rulemaking on this proposed action in that the final rule would allow 

states the option of not requiring them to meet source-specific BART 

emission limits to which they otherwise could be subject. 

These sources are in the following groups: 

Industry group SICa NAICSb

Electric Services 492 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 

 

1 See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of 

Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

2 See Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter 

and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain 

Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule, 70 FR 25162 (May 

12, 2005).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 6 of 72

221121, 221122

a Standard Industrial Classification.

b North American Industry Classification System.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA

through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a 

disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk 

or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition 

to one complete version of the comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed to be CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 

remember to:

 Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page 

number).

 Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 7 of 72

 Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 

substitute language for your requested changes.

 Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 

and/or data that you used.

 If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived 

at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 

reproduced.

 Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives.

 Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 

profanity or personal threats.

 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 

identified.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy 

of this notice will be posted at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html under “Recent Actions.”

D. What information should I know about a possible public hearing? 

To register to speak at the hearing on this document, contact 

Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641 before 5 p.m. on [INSERT DATE 15 

DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For updates 

and additional information on a public hearing, please check the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 8 of 72

EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html under “recent 

actions.”

E. How is this notice organized? 

The information presented in this notice is organized as 

follows:

I. General Information

 A. Does this action apply to me?

 B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting CBI

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments

 C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

 D. What information should I know about a public hearing?

 E. How is this notice organized? 

II. What action is the EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for the EPA’s proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Addressing Regional Haze

C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART 

1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility Progress of an Alternative 

Program to BART

2. What is the Relationship between BART and CAIR?

3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for State Regional Haze 

Implementation Plans

4. The Transport Rule and Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans

IV. Proposed Determination that the Transport Rule is an Approvable 

Alternative to BART

A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test

B. Identification of Affected Class I Areas

C. Scenarios Examined

D. Emission Projections

E. Air Quality Modeling Results

F. Proposed Amendment to the Regional Haze Rule

V. Proposed Limited Disapproval of Certain States’ Regional Haze 

SIPs

VI. Proposed FIPs

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

 Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory

 Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 9 of 72

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

 Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

 Environmental Health and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

 Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

 Low-Income Populations

II. What action is the EPA proposing to take?

In this action, the EPA is proposing to find that the trading 

programs in the Transport Rule achieve greater reasonable progress 

towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions 

in mandatory Class I federal areas than source-specific BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule applies. Specifically, we are 

proposing that the trading programs set out in the Transport Rule

meet the requirements of an alternative program as prescribed in the 

regional haze rule (RHR) at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)and are proposing to 

revise the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) 

accordingly to allow states to substitute participation in the 

trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART.

In addition, we are also proposing to find that any approved SIPs 

revising or adopting the Transport Rule trading programs, which must 

control emissions at least as stringently as the Transport Rule FIPs,

will also meet the requirements for an alternative to BART for EGUs 

for the pollutants which the Transport Rule limits in that state.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 10 of 72

In this action we are also proposing a limited disapproval of 

the regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,

Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and 

Texas. These states, fully consistent with the EPA’s regulations at 

the time, relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve 

the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.3 CAIR and the CAIR FIP 

requirements, however, will only remain in force to address emissions 

through the 2011 control period and thus CAIR cannot be relied upon 

in a SIP as a substitute for BART or as part of a long-term control 

strategy. The EPA has already proposed limited disapproval of certain 

other state regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR.

4 We plan to take 

final action on both groups of SIPs when this action is finalized. 

In this action we are also proposing FIPs for all the states for 

which we have previously proposed limited disapproval and for all the 

states for which we are proposing a limited disapproval of their 

regional haze SIP in this action due to the change in status of CAIR. 

Regional haze SIPs were due in December 2007. For a number of the 

 

3 The states for which we are proposing limited disapproval in this 

action are those that both relied on CAIR to satisfy BART 

requirements and are now covered by the requirements of the Transport 

Rule, for which we have not already made such a proposal.

4 The states for which the EPA has previously proposed limited 

disapproval of regional haze SIPs are Tennessee, Virginia and West 

Virginia.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 11 of 72

states identified above, we made a finding on January 15, 2009, that 

the states had failed to timely submit a regional haze SIP. Most of 

these states have subsequently submitted SIPs, but we have not yet 

acted on them. Under the CAA, the EPA is required to promulgate a FIP

within 2 years after finding that a state has failed to make a 

required submission or after disapproving a SIP in whole or in part, 

unless the state first adopts and we have fully approved a SIP. CAA § 

110(c)(1). Given these CAA requirements and the fact that the 

Transport Rule has now replaced CAIR, we consider it appropriate at 

this time to issue FIPs to address the deficiencies in the regional 

haze SIPs related to the termination of CAIR. Our adoption of these 

FIPs at this time avoids the near-term need for additional 

administrative steps on the part of these states. The proposed

regional haze FIPs also allow states the option of a less costly 

approach to meeting the regional haze requirements of the CAA since 

the proposed FIPs rely on the trading program already promulgated in 

the Transport Rule. We encourage states, at any time, to submit a 

revision to their regional haze SIP incorporating the requirements of 

the Transport Rule at which time we will withdraw the FIP we are 

proposing in this action. However, we anticipate that some states may 

choose to remain subject to the proposed FIP and not submit a SIP 

revision. Our proposed finding that the Transport Rule makes greater 

reasonable progress than BART for EGUs in these states will hold true 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 12 of 72

regardless of whether a state chooses to submit a SIP revision under 

subpart 52.38 and 52.39 or remain subject to a FIP.

The proposed FIPs also address the requirements for the affected 

states’ long-term strategies for Regional Haze. The affected states 

originally set the reasonable progress goals in their SIPs based on 

the emission reductions expected to be achieved by CAIR, along with 

other emission reductions qualified for that purpose. Because overall 

EGU emission reductions from the Transport Rule are larger than the 

EGU reductions achieved by CAIR, we believe that the reasonable 

progress goals in the SIPs for the states addressed in this proposed 

action do not need to be revised by the states at this time or 

replaced by goals established by us via FIPs. The substitution of the 

Transport Rule for CAIR does not weaken any affected state’s longterm strategy. We intend to act on the reasonable progress goals and 

long-term strategies (including the proposed FIPs) and other 

requirements of the RHR (monitoring, consultation with federal land 

managers, etc.) for each state in an individual notice at or after 

the time of the final rule for this action. 

III. What is the background for the 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 13 of 72

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 and alters the color of scenes, and reduces the 

distance at which one can see a scene. 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 range5 in many mandatory Class I 

federal areas6 in the western United States is about 60 – 100 miles, or 

 

5 Visual range is the greatest distance at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky.

6 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist of 

national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national 

memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that 

were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance 

with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the 

Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 

30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent 

changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 

Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 

which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of 

the CAA apply only to “mandatory Class I Federal areas.” Each 

mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a “Federal 

Land Manager.” 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term “Class I area” 

in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 14 of 72

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 20 

miles, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Addressing Regional Haze 

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national 

parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a 

national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas 

which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” On December 2, 

1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a 

single source or small group of sources, i.e., “reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment”. 45 FR 80084. These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. The 

EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of 

sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were 

improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address 

regional haze issues. The EPA promulgated the RHR to address regional 

haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the existing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 15 of 72

visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for 

regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in the 

EPA’s visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. 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. 

Section 169A of the CAA and the EPA’s implementing regulations 

require states to establish long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. Implementation plans must 

also give specific attention to certain stationary 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 sources7 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 

 

7 The set of “major stationary sources” potentially subject to BART is 

listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 16 of 72

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, as described below. 

C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART

1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility Progress of an 

Alternative Program to BART

Criteria for determining if an alternative measure achieves 

greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART are set out in 

the RHR at § 51.308(e)(3). The “better-than-BART” test may be 

satisfied as follows: If the distribution of emissions is not 

substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure 

results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure 

may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the 

distribution of emissions is significantly different, then states are 

directed to conduct an air quality modeling study to determine 

differences in visibility between BART and the alternative program 

for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20 percent of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 17 of 72

days.8 The two-pronged visibility test would demonstrate “greater 

reasonable progress” under the alternative program if both of the 

following criteria are met:

- Visibility does not decline in any Class I area9, and

- There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by 

comparing the average differences between BART and the 

alternative over all affected Class I areas.

The EPA’s authority to establish non-BART alternatives and the 

specific methodology outlined above have been judicially challenged 

and upheld twice, firmly establishing that the CAA allows states to 

substitute other programs for BART where the alternative achieves 

greater progress. In the first case, the court affirmed our 

interpretation of CAA 169A(b)(2) as allowing for alternatives to BART 

where those alternatives will result in greater reasonable progress 

than BART. Center for Energy and Economic Development v. EPA, 398 

f.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“CEED”) (finding reasonable the EPA’s 

interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2) as requiring BART only as 

necessary to make reasonable progress). In the second case, Utility 

Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006), the 

 

8 While the RHR directs the state to conduct the air quality modeling 

study, as described in section III.C.2, EPA itself conducted such a 

study for CAIR and through a notice-and-comment rulemaking codified 

the conclusion that the stated criteria were met by adding specific 

provisions allowing the use of CAIR in lieu of source-specific BART. 

9 As explained in section VI.1, the “decline” is relative to modeled 

future baseline visibility conditions in the absence of any BART or 

alternative program control requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 18 of 72

court specifically upheld our determination that states could rely on 

CAIR, as discussed below, as an alternative program to BART for EGUs 

in the CAIR-affected states. 

2. What is the relationship between BART and CAIR?

In May 2005, the EPA published CAIR, which required 28 states 

and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

significantly contribute to, or interfere with maintenance of, the 

1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine 

particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. The CAIR established

emission budgets for SO2 and NOX for states that contribute 

significantly to nonattainment in downwind states and required the 

significantly contributing states to submit SIP revisions that 

implemented these budgets. Because such SIP revisions were already 

overdue, CAIR also promulgated FIPs for the affected states 

establishing a cap and trade program for EGUs with opt-in provisions 

for other sources. States had the flexibility to subsequently adopt 

SIP revisions mirroring CAIR requirements or otherwise providing 

emission reductions sufficient to address interference with 

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. Many affected 

states adopted CAIR-mirroring SIPs, while others chose to remain 

under CAIR FIPs. 

As noted in Section III.C.1, the RHR allows states to implement 

an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program has been demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 19 of 72

toward the national visibility goal than would BART. The EPA made 

just such a demonstration for CAIR in revisions to the regional haze 

program made in 2005. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, 

we amended our regulations to provide that states participating in 

the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an 

EPA-approved CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to the CAIR FIP 

in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to 

install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4).

As a result of our determination that CAIR was “better-thanBART” a number of states in the CAIR region, fully consistent with 

our regulations, designed their regional haze implementation plans to 

rely on the CAIR cap-and-trade program as an alternative to BART for 

EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX. These states also relied on CAIR as an 

element of a long-term strategy for achieving their reasonable 

progress goals. 

3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for State Regional Haze 

Implementation Plans

Following our determination in 2005 that CAIR was “better-thanBART” and the upholding of this determination by the court in 2006, 

the D.C. Circuit Court ruled on several petitions for review

challenging CAIR on various grounds. As a result of this litigation

the D.C. Circuit Court remanded CAIR to the EPA, but later decided 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 20 of 72

not to vacate the rule.10 The court thereby left CAIR and CAIR SIPs 

and FIPs in place in order to “temporarily preserve the environmental 

values covered by CAIR” until the EPA replaced it with a rule 

consistent with the court's opinion. 550 F.3d at 1178. The EPA 

replaced CAIR with the Transport Rule on August 8, 2011.11 The 

Transport Rule will take effect on January 1, 2012. The CAIR and the 

CAIR FIPs will remain in place to address emissions through the end 

of the 2011 control periods. 

Many states relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 

NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under the BART provisions at 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). These states also relied on the improvement in 

visibility expected to result from controls planned or already 

installed on sources in order to meet CAIR provisions in developing 

their long-term visibility strategy. In addition, many states relied 

upon their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their states as legal 

justification for these planned controls and consequently did not 

include separate enforceable measures in their long-term strategies 

(a required element of a regional haze SIP submission) to ensure 

these EGU reductions. These states also submitted demonstrations 

showing that no additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR would be 

 

10 See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; modified by 550 F.3d 1176 

(D.C. Cir. 2008).

11 See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of 

Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 21 of 72

reasonable for the first 10-year implementation period of the 

regional haze program. 

Since states in the CAIR-affected region have based a number of 

required elements of their regional haze programs on CAIR, which has 

now been replaced by the Transport Rule, we cannot fully approve 

regional haze SIP revisions that have relied on CAIR for emission 

reduction measures. To date, we have proposed limited disapprovals 

for some states whose regional haze SIP revisions rely on CAIR (for 

example for the State of Tennessee, 76 FR 33662 (June 9, 2011)). We 

intend to take final action on those proposed limited disapprovals of 

SIPs when this action is finalized. However, there are other states 

whose regional haze SIP relied on CAIR but for which the EPA has not 

yet proposed to take action. In this action we are proposing a 

limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs that have been 

submitted by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas. These states relied on CAIR 

requirements to satisfy both the BART requirement and the requirement 

for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-adopted 

reasonable progress goals, and they are now covered by the Transport 

Rule requirements.

4. The Transport Rule and Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 22 of 72

The Transport Rule sunsets CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control 

periods in 2012 and beyond. The Transport Rule requires 28 states in 

the eastern half of the United States to significantly improve air 

quality by reducing EGU SO2 and NOX emissions that cross state lines 

and contribute to ground-level ozone and/or fine particle pollution 

in other states. The rule allows air-quality-assured allowance 

trading among covered sources, utilizing an allowance market 

infrastructure modeled after existing allowance trading programs. The 

Transport Rule allows sources to trade emissions allowances with 

other sources within the same program (e.g., ozone season NOX) in the 

same or different states, while firmly constraining any emissions 

shifting that may occur by establishing an emission ceiling for each 

state.

In developing the Transport Rule, we did not conduct any 

technical analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport 

Rule would satisfy regional haze BART-related requirements. 

Accordingly, in the final Transport Rule, the EPA did not make a 

determination or establish any presumption that compliance with the 

Transport Rule would satisfy BART-related requirements for EGUs. We 

have now completed such a technical analysis and it is the basis of 

this action in which we are proposing to find that in affected 

mandatory Class I federal areas, the Transport Rule achieves greater 

reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions than source-specific BART. Specifically, we are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 23 of 72

proposing that participation by EGUs in the Transport Rule trading 

program set out in 40 CFR part 97 subparts AAAAA-DDDDD meets the 

requirements of an alternative program as prescribed in the regional 

haze rule (RHR) at § 51.308(e)(3), and we are proposing to revise the 

regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) accordingly. The 

proposed determination in this action that participation in the 

Transport Rule trading program may substitute for BART applies only 

to EGUs in the states in the Transport Rule region and only to the 

pollutants subject to the requirements of the Transport Rule (i.e., 

SO2 and/or NOX). Emissions of other visibility impairing pollutants 

(e.g., PM2.5, NH3 or VOC) must still be evaluated according to the RHR 

Guidelines. Non-EGU sources also remain subject to requirements of 

the RHR.

Under the proposed revision to this section, a state in the 

Transport Rule region whose EGUs are subject to the requirements of 

the Transport Rule trading program only for annual NOX or ozone season 

NOX would be allowed to rely on our proposed determination that the 

Transport Rule makes greater reasonable progress than source-specific 

BART for NOX. Such a state would still need to address BART for SO2.

In this action we are also proposing a FIP for those Transport 

Rule states for which we already have or now are proposing a limited 

disapproval due to the termination of CAIR. For these states, the 

proposed FIP would replace reliance on the CAIR requirements with 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 24 of 72

reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 

NOX emissions from EGUs and as a long-term strategy measure.

We are proposing to leave unchanged the language in the regional 

haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)that allows states to retain 

the discretion to include geographic enhancements in their SIP to 

accommodate the situation where BART is required based on reasonable 

attribution of visibility impairment at a Class I area.12

IV. Proposed Determination that the Transport Rule is an Approvable 

Alternative to BART

A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test

As described in section C.1., the two-pronged test for 

determining if an alternative program achieves greater reasonable 

progress than source-specific BART is set out in the RHR at 40 CFR

51.308(e)(3). The underlying purpose of both prongs of the test is to 

assess whether visibility conditions at Class I areas would be better 

with the alternative program in place than they would without it. The 

first prong ensures that the alternative program will not cause a 

decline in visibility at any affected Class I area. It addresses the 

possibility that the alternative program might cause local changes in 

emissions that could result in localized visibility degradation. The 

 

12 A geographic enhancement is a method, procedure, or process to 

allow a broad regional strategy, such as the Transport Rule cap and 

trade program, to accommodate BART for reasonable attributable 

impairment. For example, it could consist of a methodology for

adjusting allowance allocations at a source which is required to 

install BART controls. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 25 of 72

second prong ensures that the program results in improvements in 

average visibility across all affected Class I areas as compared to

adopting source-specific BART. Together, these tests ensure that the 

alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress than 

would source-specific BART. 

In the case of the Transport Rule as an alternative to sourcespecific BART, the logical reference point for the first prong is 

visibility conditions as they are expected to be at the time the 

Transport Rule is implemented but in the absence of BART. This 

ensures that the predicted visibility differences are due to the

Transport Rule alternative and not to other extrinsic factors. For 

example, if large increases in wildfires are expected, due to

accumulation of fuel from past forest management practices, a 

degradation of visibility from current conditions may be expected. It 

would be irrational to disapprove an alternative program as not 

meeting the first prong of the test because of a modeled degradation 

from current conditions, where that degradation is actually 

anticipated because of smoke from wildfires — sources which are not 

subject to the CAA BART provisions. By comparing the Transport Rule

alternative to future projected baseline conditions without any BART 

program, such extrinsic variables are accounted for. We are thus able 

to ascertain (to the extent possible where future projections are 

concerned) whether visibility under the alternative would decline at 

any affected Class I area, all other things being equal. Therefore, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 26 of 72

in applying the first prong of the test to the Transport Rule, we 

used a future (2014) projected baseline.

13 Similarly, in applying the 

second prong of the test, we assumed identical future conditions (the 

same as in the future 2014 baseline case) for non-EGU sources for 

both the source-specific BART scenario and the Transport Rule

scenario.

To satisfy each prong of the test we examined visibility 

differences on both the worst and best 20 percent of days. Thus, 

under the first prong, visibility must not decline at any affected

Class I area on either the best 20 percent or the worst 20 percent 

days as a result of implementing the Transport Rule; and, under the 

second prong the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days should be 

considered in determining whether the Transport Rule produces greater 

average improvement than source-specific BART over all affected Class 

I areas.

B. Identification of Affected Class I Areas

In applying the two-pronged test to the Transport Rule, we first 

identified the Class I areas in the 48 contiguous states with 

sufficiently complete monitoring data available to support the 

analysis.14 There were 140 such Class I areas represented by 96 

 

13 The 2014 baseline modeling for this analysis is identical to the 

Transport Rule 2014 baseline. The 2014 baseline does not include the 

Transport Rule, BART, or CAIR control programs.

14 The modeling used a 2005 base case projected to a 2014 future year. 

The modeling days for the analysis were based on the observed 20 

percent best and 20 percent worst days from 2005 at each IMPROVE 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 27 of 72

IMPROVE monitors; nine Class I areas were excluded that did not have 

sufficient historical ambient data from the IMPROVE monitoring 

program to support the technical analysis.15 After identifying these 

areas we then considered two possible approaches we could use to 

identify which of these areas are “affected” Class I areas in terms 

of the potential effect of the Transport Rule as an alternative 

control program to source-specific BART. In the first approach, we 

identified as affected Class I areas 60 mandatory Class I federal 

areas represented by 46 IMPROVE monitors located in 37 complete 

states and four partial states that are contained in the eastern 

portion of the Transport Rule modeling domain.

16 The second approach 

we considered was a national approach in which visibility impacts on 

140 Class I areas across the 48 contiguous states were evaluated.

In the Transport Rule, the determination of states that 

contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance 

 

site. Therefore, the analysis could not be completed for IMPROVE 

sites that did not have complete ambient data for 2005.

15 In the Regional Haze Program, there are 110 ambient monitoring 

sites which represent 155 Class I areas. Therefore, some monitors 

represent air quality at more than one Class I area. See Guidance for 

Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. EPA, EPA-454/B03-004, September 2003, which is found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. In our 

analysis we calculated visibility changes at each individual Class I 

area. Therefore, some IMPROVE monitors are counted more than once in 

the averaging of the visibility data. This does not affect the 

proposed finding that the Transport Rule is better than sourcespecific BART.

16 The “eastern” Transport Rule modeling grid used a horizontal 

resolution of 12 km. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 28 of 72

focused on the 37 states that are fully contained in this eastern 

modeling domain. The eastern modeling domain also includes large 

parts of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. In the Transport 

Rule, EPA did not determine that Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New 

Mexico or the six New England states were contributing to violations 

of the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, or 

interfering with maintenance in downwind states and therefore they 

are not included in the Transport Rule program.17 However, we included 

Class I areas located in these non-Transport Rule states and partial 

states in the first approach for identifying “affected areas”. It is 

conceivable that because of proximity, emissions from the Transport 

Rule states could impact any of the Class I areas in the eastern 

Transport Rule modeling domain. Specifically, in this first approach 

for identifying “affected areas” in the Transport Rule region we 

examined impacts on 27 Class I areas located within the Transport 

Rule states and 33 additional Class I areas located in non-Transport 

Rule states but within the eastern Transport Rule modeling domain, 

for a total of 60 Class I areas.

The eastern Transport Rule modeling domain lies within a larger 

modeling domain which covers the lower 48 states and adjacent 

 

17 The Transport Rule determined that the six New England states did 

not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in 

downwind states. The Transport Rule did not make a determination 

whether Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in neighboring states.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 29 of 72

portions of Canada and Mexico. In the Transport Rule, the results 

obtained with this national domain were used to calculate boundary 

conditions for the eastern Transport Rule region. The EPA did not use 

the national domain to investigate interstate contributions to 

nonattainment or interference with maintenance, in part because the 

air quality model structure for the national domain is less suitable 

for that type of use.18 In the second approach to identifying which 

areas are “affected” Class I areas we used data from the larger 

domain to estimate potential visibility impacts on Class I areas 

located to the west of the Transport Rule modeling region boundary. 

The additional 80 Class I areas under this national approach are in 

states or part of states that were not part of the eastern modeling 

domain for the Transport Rule, but were part of the western modeling 

domain.19 In this approach, the eastern domain 12 km modeling results 

were used to calculate visibility changes in the 60 eastern Class I 

areas and the national domain 36 km modeling results were used to

calculate visibility changes in the 80 western Class I areas. 

Consideration of this national region would encompass the possibility 

 

18

 The eastern modeling domain used a 12 km grid size, while the 

national modeling domain used a 36 km grid size. See Air Quality 

Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011, 

which is found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.

19 See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, 

U.S. EPA, June 2011, which is found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 30 of 72

that the Transport Rule might have the effect of increasing EGU 

emissions in the most western portion of the United States due to 

shifts in electricity generation or other market effects. In total, 

the national domain includes 140 Class I areas (including the 60 

contained within the Transport Rule region).

We request comment on whether the “affected Class I areas” 

should be considered to be the 60 Class I areas located in the 

Transport Rule eastern modeling domain, the larger set of 140 Class I 

areas in the larger national domain, or some other set. We note that 

given the modeling results presented in section VI.5, the choice 

between the 60 Class I areas or the 140 Class I areas does not affect 

our proposed conclusion that both prongs of the two-prong test are 

met.

C. Scenarios Examined

The Transport Rule requires 28 states in the eastern half of the 

United States to reduce EGU SO2 and NOX emissions that cross state 

lines and contribute to ground-level ozone and fine particle 

pollution in other states. BART, on the other hand, is applicable 

nationwide and covers 26 industrial categories, including EGUs, of a 

certain vintage. In our comparison, we sought to determine whether 

the Transport Rule cap-and-trade program for EGUs will achieve 

greater reasonable progress than would BART for EGUs only. Therefore, 

we examined two relevant control scenarios. The first control 

scenario examined SO2 and NOX emissions from all EGUs nationwide after 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 31 of 72

the application of BART controls to all BART-eligible EGUs 

(“Nationwide BART”). In the second scenario, EGU SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions attributable to the Transport Rule were applied in the 

Transport Rule region and BART controls were applied to all BARTeligible EGUS outside the Transport Rule region (“Transport Rule + 

BART-elsewhere”). The latter scenario reflects the fact that sourcespecific BART would remain a regional haze SIP element outside the 

Transport Rule region. In order to more accurately project the 

Transport Rule emissions, it is necessary to assume EGU BART controls 

outside the Transport Rule region to account for potential load and 

emission shifting among EGUs. For the first prong of the test, the 

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario was compared to a 2014 

future year base case representing future emissions in the absence of 

either program (and in the absence of CAIR). The comparison to the 

2014 future year “Base Case” allows the EPA to ensure that the 

Transport Rule would not cause degradation in visibility from 

conditions predicted for the year 2014 in the absence of the 

Transport Rule, BART and CAIR. 

For both the “Nationwide BART” scenario and the “Transport Rule

+ BART-elsewhere” scenario, we modeled the presumptive EGU BART 

limits for SO2 and NOX emission rates as specified in the BART 

Guidelines (Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005), unless an actual emission rate 

at a given unit with existing controls is lower. In the latter case, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 32 of 72

we modeled the lower emission rates. In addition, we modeled the 

impacts of BART using stringent assumptions regarding the EGUs (or 

specific units at EGUs) that would be subject to BART. Specifically, 

we assumed that all BART-eligible EGUs were actually subject to BART 

requirements. We also assumed that presumptive BART limits would be 

applied to much smaller units. In this analysis we assumed the 

threshold for BART-eligibility was 100 MW for SO2 and 25 MW for NOX

and did not eliminate any sources based on their annual total 

emissions. (By comparison, the RHR BART Guidelines only apply 

presumptive limits to EGUs having a total generating capacity of 750 

MW and exempt BART-eligible units with the potential to emit less 

than 40 tons per year of either SO2 or NOX.)

The RHR BART Guidelines specify presumptive SO2 BART limits for 

an EGU with an existing scrubber as 95 percent scrubber control 

efficiency or 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. We used the National Electric Energy 

Data System (NEEDS), an EPA database of existing and plannedcommitted EGUs, to identify which BART-eligible units have existing 

scrubbers.20 The NEEDS also contains information on scrubber 

efficiency and emission rates. For scrubbed BART-eligible units we 

based our BART emission rate on a comparison of the emission rate 

listed for that unit in NEEDS to the presumptive SO2 emission rate. 

 

20See The NEEDS User Guide: 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epaipm/CSAPR/docs/Guide_to_NEEDSv410.pdf which is found at 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 33 of 72

That is, if the unit has at least a 95 percent efficient scrubber, 

the emission rate being achieved at that control efficiency was 

modeled for that unit even if the emission rate was higher than 0.15 

lbs/MMBtu. Conversely, if an emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu or lower 

is being achieved, we modeled that emission rate for the unit, even 

if the scrubber is less than 95 percent efficient. For BART-eligible 

units without existing scrubbers, we modeled an emission rate that 

reflected 95 percent control based on a new installation of a highly 

efficient scrubber. 

The RHR BART Guidelines specify presumptive limits for NOX based 

on coal type and boiler configuration. The BART guidelines also 

specify that existing NOX controls must be operated year round. For 

the source-specific “Nationwide BART” scenario and for the 

“elsewhere” EGUs in the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario,

we assumed that any BART-subject unit with existing NOX controls in 

the future baseline case would retain at least those controls and 

would be required to operate them year round. If the existing NOX

controls in the future baseline case did not meet the presumptive 

BART limits (with the modifications about applicability as described 

above), we assumed installation of post-combustion controls that 

would meet the BART guidelines with year-round operation. In the 

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario, there are 5 states that 

are subject to the Transport Rule requirements during the ozone 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 34 of 72

season only.21 For these states, NOX controls were assumed to operate 

only during ozone season as required by the Transport Rule. The RHR 

BART Guidelines also specify presumptive limits for NOX based on coal 

type and boiler configuration. Table 1 summarizes the NOX emission 

limits we applied to BART-eligible units of 25 MW or greater. For 

units firing a coal blend, which the BART Guidelines do not address, 

we calculated a weighted presumptive NOX limit based on the percentage 

of each coal type fired. 

Table 1. BART Presumptive NOX Limits by Boiler Configuration and Coal 

Type (lbs/MMBtu)

Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite

Dry bottom wall-fired 0.39 0.23 0.29

Tangential-fired 0.28 0.15 0.17

Cell burners 0.40 0.45 Not applicable

Dry turbo-fired 0.32 0.23 Not applicable

Wet bottom tangential-fired 0.62 Not applicable Not applicable

Cyclone 0.10 0.10 0.10

Certain EGUs in the analysis were constrained by emission limits 

other than presumptive limits due to a proposed or final regional 

haze SIP, a proposed or final regional haze FIP, a final consent 

decree, or state rules. These units and their emission limits are 

detailed in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed 

rule. (See Technical Support Document for Demonstration of the 

Transport Rule as a BART Alternative, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.)

D. Emission Projections

 

21 States subject to the Transport Rule requirements during the ozone 

season only are Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and 

Florida.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 35 of 72

To estimate emissions expected from the scenarios described in 

section IV.3, we used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The IPM is 

a multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of 

the electric power sector. It is used extensively by the EPA to 

support regulatory activities. The IPM provides forecasts of leastcost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control 

strategies for meeting electricity demand subject to environmental, 

transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. The IPM was used 

in this case to evaluate the emissions impacts of the described 

scenarios limiting the emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs. This 

analysis used the most recently updated IPM platform which is 

documented at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/.

22 Table 2 presents 

the annual emissions for each policy scenario as projected by the 

IPM. As shown by the numbers in the far right column, “Transport Rule

+ BART-elsewhere” achieved greater emission reductions nationwide23

for both pollutants than source-specific “Nationwide BART” alone.

Table 2. EGU SO2 and NOX Annual Emissions as Projected by IPM

(In thousands of tons per year)

2014 Base 

Case EGU 

Emissions

2014 

“Nationwide 

BART”

2014 

“Transport 

Rule + BARTelsewhere”

Additional 

reduction 

from 

“Transport 

Rule + BART-

 

22 Extensive documentation of the IPM platform may be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.

23 In the context of this action, when we refer to nationwide 

emissions or a nationwide analysis, we are referring to the 

contiguous 48 states.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 36 of 72

elsewhere”

(“Nationwide 

BART” minus 

“Transport 

Rule + BARTelsewhere”)

Nationwide 

SO2

7,200 3,800 2,900 900

Nationwide 

NOX

2,100 1,900 1,800 100

The IPM projections of annual NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs for

the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” control scenario summarized in 

Table 2, which were used to arrive at the modeling results presented 

in section VI.5, are based on the state budgets prescribed in the 

final Transport Rule published on August 8, 2011 and the supplemental 

proposal published on July 11, 2011.

24 On October 14, 2011 the EPA 

issued a proposed notice that would increase NOX and SO2 budgets for 

certain states in accordance with revisions to certain unit-level 

input data. 76 FR 63860. Even if these proposed increases to state 

budgets are finalized, emissions of both NOX and SO2 in the Transport 

Rule states in the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” control scenario 

will still be substantially below emissions in the “Base Case” 

scenario. Therefore, we believe that the modeling results in section 

VI.5 comparing these two scenarios based on the emissions from the 

 

24 See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of 

Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The 

ozone season state budgets for the states affected by the 

supplemental proposal published on July 11, 2001 (76 FR 40662) are 

included in the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” control scenario.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 37 of 72

final Transport Rule, showing that the first prong of the betterthan-BART test is satisfied, are also sufficient for determining that 

the Transport Rule as modified by the proposed increases in the state 

budgets also would meet the first prong. 

Also, the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” control scenario is 

still projected to result in about 3,000 tons more NOX emission 

reductions than “Nationwide BART” and about 845,000 tons more SO2

emission reductions than “Nationwide BART”. We believe the changes in 

the emissions differences between these two scenarios that would 

result if the proposed increases in state budgets are finalized are 

unlikely to affect the determination of whether “Transport Rule + 

BART-elsewhere” provides greater visibility improvement than 

“Nationwide BART” averaged across all affected Class I areas, as 

assessed by the second prong of two-pronged test. We request comment 

on this aspect of our proposed determination. 

E. Air Quality Modeling Results

To assess the air quality metrics that are part of the two–

pronged test, we used the IPM emission projections summarized in 

Table 2 as inputs to an air quality model to determine the impact of 

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” and “Nationwide BART” controls on 

visibility in the affected Class I areas. To project air quality 

impacts we used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension 

(CAMx) version 5.3. The air quality modeling analysis and related 

analyses to project visibility improvement are described in more 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 38 of 72

detail in the TSD for the Transport Rule.

25 The base year meteorology 

used in the CAMx modeling was 2005. The base year IMPROVE ambient 

monitoring data for the years 2003-2007 were used to project 

visibility to 2014 and to compare the visibility improvements from 

the two control scenarios. The 2003-2007 IMPROVE data were used 

because these are the 5 years of data which straddle the base 2005 

modeling year. The post-processing calculations for visibility are 

consistent with the RHR tracking progress guidance26 and the regional 

haze air quality modeling guidance.27 The visibility projections for 

each Class I area are presented in the air quality modeling TSD.28

We did two separate analyses to assess the potential visibility 

impacts of “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” and “Nationwide BART” 

controls on 60 Class I areas in the Transport Rule region and on 140 

Class I areas in the contiguous 48 states (referred to as the 

national region). For both visibility scenarios we quantified the 

visibility impacts on the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst 

 

25 See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, 

U.S. EPA, June 2011, which is found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.

26 See Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

U.S. EPA, EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, which is found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf.

27 See Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze, U.S. EPA, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007, which is found

at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rhguidance.pdf.

28 See Technical Support Document for Demonstration of the Transport 

Rule as a BART Alternative, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 39 of 72

visibility days for the 2014 future-year base case, the “Transport 

Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario, and the “Nationwide BART” control 

scenario. Under the first prong of the test, visibility cannot 

degrade at any affected Class I area. To determine if “Transport Rule

+ BART-elsewhere” resulted in degradation of visibility at any 

affected Class I area we compared the visibility impacts of 

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” to base case 2014 visibility 

conditions. 

As described in detail in the TSD for this action, the 

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” alternative passed this first prong 

in the Transport Rule region by not causing visibility degradation at 

any of the 60 affected Class I areas in the eastern Transport Rule

modeling domain (i.e., when using the first approach to identifying 

affected areas), on either the 20 percent best or the 20 percent 

worst days. In the national region (i.e., when using the second 

approach to identifying affected areas), the “Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere” alternative was also predicted to not cause visibility 

degradation at any affected Class I area on either the 20 percent 

best of the 20 percent worst days, with a few exceptions. The 

exceptions were predicted average degradations of 0.23, 0.23, and 

0.26 deciviews, respectively, at Pine Mountain Wilderness, Arizona, 

Mazatzal Wilderness, Arizona, and Saguaro National Park, Arizona, on 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 40 of 72

the 20 percent worst days.

29 There was also a predicted degradation of

0.05 deciviews on the 20 percent best days at Bryce Canyon National 

Park in Utah.

30 While not part of the two-pronged test, we also 

compared the baseline scenario to the “Nationwide BART” scenario. The 

analysis of the national region under the “Nationwide BART” control 

scenario projected a degradation of 0.23 deciviews on the 20 percent

worst days at Pine Mountain Wilderness and Mazatzal Wilderness (the 

same as the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” result just noted).

The fact that unexpected degradations at some western Class I 

areas were predicted for the “Nationwide BART” scenario as well as 

the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario led us to investigate 

the CAMx modeling output in more detail.31 Based on that 

investigation, we consider the visibility projections for the western 

portion of the national modeling domain that indicate potential 

degradation in 4 western Class I areas under the “Transport Rule + 

BART-elsewhere” scenario compared to the “Base Case” scenario to be 

anomalous results that do not indicate the true effects that the 

 

29 The results for Pine Mountain and Mazatzal were the same because 

they are both represented by the same IMPROVE monitoring site (Ike’s 

Backbone, IKBA).

30 Changes in visibility were rounded to the nearest 0.1 deciviews. 

Therefore, any changes that were less than .05 were rounded down and 

treated as zero. Any changes that were 0.05 or greater were rounded 

up and treated as potential degradation. 

31 The TSD in the docket for this action provides more information on 

this aspect of the CAMx modeling results.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 41 of 72

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario (or the “Nationwide BART” 

scenario) will have on visibility in these areas.

In the CAMx output for 36 km grid cells in the vicinity of these 

four Class I areas, we observed that modeled concentrations of 

nitrate were very low on the 20 percent worst days (and 20 percent 

best days at Bryce Canyon) in both the “Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere” case and the “Nationwide BART” case. The modeled nitrate 

concentrations in these cases ranged from 0.001 to 0.004 μg/m3, 

averaged across the 20 percent worst or best days in 2005. Notably, 

the modeled concentrations were generally a small fraction of 

monitored ambient nitrate concentrations at the IMPROVE sites for the 

four Class I areas. In the cases where degradation was calculated, a 

very small increase in modeled nitrate was observed on several of the 

worst or best modeled days. This lead to a relatively large modeled 

percent increase in nitrate. As an example, on the worst days at Pine 

Mountain and Mazatzal the modeled nitrate concentration increased 

from 0.001 μg/m3 in the 2014 base case to 0.002 μg/m3 in the 

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” case. 

Further examination of the days when these nitrate increases 

occur reveals a somewhat random pattern of very small increases and 

decreases that appear unrelated to EGU emissions changes. While IPM 

predicts modestly higher NOX emissions in some nearby states under the 

“Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario, the checkerboard pattern 

of nitrate differences in Arizona and southern Utah show no logical 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 42 of 72

connection to these modestly higher emissions. This nitrate modeling 

issue appears similar to a previously noted nitrate chemistry 

stability issue when modeled concentrations are very small and 

relative humidity is very low.32 Thus, we conclude that these positive 

and negative differences between very low nitrate concentrations are 

a modeling artifact attributable to the nitrate physics in CAMx for 

the conditions that apply in this geographic area on these days, and 

are not reasonable predictors of the true relative effects on 

visibility of the emission control scenarios. 

To illustrate how sensitive the predictions of degradation are 

to highly variable results on particular days, if the one day of the 

20 percent worst or best days with the largest increase in modeled 

nitrate concentration at each site is removed from consideration for 

that site, the apparent degradations no longer occur. We also note 

that although the increases in modeled nitrate concentrations are 

very small (ranging between 0.01 and 0.04 μg/m3 for the one day at 

each site just mentioned), the “relative response factor” method we 

used to combine CAMx output (representing future conditions) with 

IMPROVE monitoring data (representing historical conditions) greatly 

magnified these small increases in nitrate concentrations. The small 

increases in modeled nitrate are converted to relatively large 

percent increases in nitrate and then multiplied by actual ambient 

 

32 The TSD in the docket for this action provides more information on 

this issue.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 43 of 72

nitrate concentrations in the base period that are far higher than 

the concentrations predicted by CAMx. Thus, very small differences in 

concentrations of nitrate in the CAMx output that would have had no 

effect on calculated deciview values if used directly, nevertheless 

result in apparent degradations on the order of 0.1 to 0.26 deciviews 

after being combined with IMPROVE data. The EPA is investigating 

possible modifications to the software used to post-process CAMx 

output. These possible revisions are aimed at avoiding potentially 

misleading results in situations such as the one observed near these

western Class I areas. We seek comment on an alternate methodology 

described in the TSD that attempts to address the effects of very low 

nitrate concentrations on visibility results. 

After considering the results of the first prong of the 

visibility test and examining the CAMx output in more detail as 

described above, we are confident that no degradation in the four 

western Class I areas will result from implementation of the 

Transport Rule trading program in the Eastern U.S. Consequently, we 

are proposing that the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” control 

scenario passes the first prong of the visibility test considering 

affected Class I areas located in both the Transport Rule region 

(first approach) and the national region (second approach). Details 

on the individual Class I area calculations can be found in the air 

quality modeling TSD. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 44 of 72

The second prong of the test assesses whether the “Transport 

Rule + BART-elsewhere” scenario results in greater average visibility 

improvement at affected Class I areas compared to the “Nationwide 

BART” scenario. To determine if “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” 

achieved greater average visibility improvement, we compared the 

visibility impacts of “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” at the Class 

I areas to visibility impacts predicted at these same areas after 

implementation of “Nationwide BART”. In the Transport Rule region 

(first approach) and the national region (second approach), the 

average visibility improvement of the “Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere” alternative was greater than “Nationwide BART” on both the 

20 percent best and 20 percent worst days. Thus, the “Transport Rule

+ BART-elsewhere” alternative measure passed the second prong of the 

test, regardless of which way affected Class I areas are identified. 

A summary of the results of the second prong of the test for the 

Transport Rule and national regions under each control scenario is 

presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Average Visibility Improvement in 2015 v. 2015 Base Case 

(Deciviews)

“Transport Rule + 

BART-elsewhere” “Nationwide BART”

60 Class I Areas in the 

Eastern Transport Rule

Modeling Domain

20 percent Worst Days 1.6 0.7

20 percent Best Days 0.3 0.1

140 Class I Areas in the 

Western and Eastern Transport 

Rule Modeling Domains
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 45 of 72

20 percent Worst Days 0.7 0.5

20 percent Best Days 0.1 0.1

F. Proposed Amendment to the Regional Haze Rule

Based on our finding that the “Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere” 

control scenario passes the two-pronged test, we are proposing to 

determine that the Transport Rule trading program will provide

greater progress towards Regional Haze goals than source-specific 

BART. This proposed determination applies only to EGUs in the 

Transport Rule trading programs and only for the pollutants covered 

by the programs in each state. Accordingly, we propose to revise 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(3)(ii)(4) by essentially replacing the name of CAIR 

with the name of the Transport Rule. 

We are also proposing that a state that chooses to meet the 

emission reduction requirements of the Transport Rule by submitting a 

complete SIP revision substantively identical to the provisions of 

the EPA trading program that is approved as meeting the requirements 

of §52.38 and/or §52.39 also need not require BART-eligible EGUs in 

the state to install, operate, and maintain BART for the pollutants 

covered by such a trading program in the state.

We are preserving the language in the regional haze regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)that allows states to include in their SIPs 

geographic enhancements to the alternative program to accommodate a 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 46 of 72

situation where BART is required based on reasonable attribution of 

visibility impairment at a Class I area.

A number of the states for which we are proposing a FIP had 

previously failed to either submit a visibility SIP or had failed to 

submit a SIP that could be fully approved under the visibility 

regulations issued in 1980. See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). The 

proposed regulatory text is drafted to take account of this and is 

not intended to change the findings that have been made in the past 

with respect to the relevant states’ compliance with the requirements 

of visibility regulations found at 40 CFR 51.302-51.307.

V. Proposed Limited Disapproval of Certain States’ Regional Haze 

SIPs

In this action, we are proposing a limited disapproval of the 

regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, 

Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and 

Texas. These states, fully consistent with the EPA’s regulations at 

the time, relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve 

the state-adopted reasonable progress goals. 

We are not proposing to disapprove the reasonable progress 

targets for 2018 that are an element of the long-term strategies for 

these states. We made clear in the RHR that the reasonable progress 

goals are not mandatory standards in the sense of there being 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 47 of 72

consequences if they are not met because there are inherent 

uncertainties in projecting future emissions and resulting visibility 

conditions. See 64 FR 35733. However, to assess whether current 

implementation strategies will be sufficient to meet the reasonable 

progress goals, the RHR requires a midcourse review by each state 

and, if necessary, a correction of the state’s regional haze plan. 

See 40 CFR 52.308(g). We anticipate that since the Transport Rule

will result in greater emission reductions overall than CAIR, that 

the need for such corrections will be unlikely. Based on the 

information currently before us, we believe that the substitution of 

the Transport Rule for CAIR does not weaken any affected state’s 

long-term strategy, but we will assess the midcourse review of each 

state’s SIP to ensure that this is so. We intend to act on the 

reasonable progress goals and long-term strategy (including the 

proposed FIP) and other requirements of the RHR (BART determinations 

for non-EGU sources, monitoring, consultation with federal land 

managers, etc.) for each state in an individual notice separately 

from the final rule for this action. Those individual notices will 

constitute the final action (approval or disapproval) on those other 

elements of the SIP. 

The EPA has already proposed limited disapproval of regional 

haze SIPs that relied on CAIR that were submitted by Tennessee, 

Virginia and West Virginia. The remedy for the limited disapprovals 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 48 of 72

previously proposed and those that are proposed in this action is 

FIPs as described in section VI.

VI. Proposed FIPs

In this action, we are proposing partial regional haze FIPs for 

states for which we already have or are now proposing limited 

disapprovals because of the termination of CAIR. These limited FIPs 

would satisfy the BART requirement and be a part of satisfying the 

requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the stateadopted reasonable progress goals. The FIPs apply only to EGUs in the 

affected states and only to pollutants covered by the Transport Rule

program in those states. For the reasons discussed in section V., the 

proposed FIPs do not alter states’ reasonable progress goals or 

replace these goals. 

The proposed FIPs replace reliance on CAIR requirements with 

reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 

NOX emissions from EGUs in the following states’ regional haze SIPs: 

Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

Virginia and West Virginia. The proposed FIPs replace reliance on 

CAIR requirements with reliance on the Transport Rule as an 

alternative to BART for NOX emissions from EGUs in the following 

states’ regional haze SIPs: Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Given the requirements of the CAA to promulgate a FIP after 

disapproving a SIP in whole or in part (CAA section 110(c)(1)), we
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 49 of 72

consider it appropriate at this time to propose to issue FIPs to

address the noted deficiencies in these states’ regional haze SIPs 

related to the termination of CAIR and the replacement of CAIR with 

the Transport Rule. A state may choose to submit a SIP or remain

subject to this FIP. The proposed regional haze FIPs rely on the 

trading program set out in the FIPs promulgated by the EPA in August 

2011 in the Transport Rule to limit the interstate transport of NOX

and SO2.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a "significant regulatory action” because some may view it 

as raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the Executive Order. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes 

made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden 

under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 50 of 72

et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not 

include or require any information collection.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a 

small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A 

governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district, or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule will not impose any requirements on small 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 51 of 72

entities. Rather, this proposed rule would allow states to avoid 

regulating EGUs in new ways based on the current requirements of the 

Transport Rule and as such does not impose any new requirements on 

small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531 – 1538) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private 

sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action 

merely interprets the statutory requirements that apply to states in 

preparing their SIPs and thus apply also to FIPs.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 52 of 72

of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action 

does not impose any new mandates on state or local governments.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA 

policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 

governments, the EPA is specifically soliciting comments on this 

proposed rule from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The rule does 

not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 

since there are no BART-eligible EGU sources on tribal lands in the 

Transport Rule region. In addition, the CAA does not provide for the 

inclusion of any tribal areas as mandatory Class I federal areas; 

thus, tribal areas are not subject to the requirements of the RHR. 

Furthermore, this proposed rule does not affect the relationship or 

distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal

government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health and Safety Risks 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 53 of 72

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis required under section

5–501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that

may disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the 

emissions reductions from the strategies in this rule will further 

improve air quality and will further improve children’s health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy because it does not establish 

requirements that directly affect the general public and the public 

and private sectors. Rather, this proposed rule would allow states to 

avoid regulating EGUs in new ways based on the current requirements 

of the Transport Rule, and thus may avoid adverse effects that 

conceivably might result from such additional regulation of EGUs by 

states.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 54 of 72

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 

rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA

is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (EO) (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part 

of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States.

When considering the possible environmental justice impacts of 

this proposed rule, it is important to distinguish the set of 

scenarios on which the better-than-BART analysis described in this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 55 of 72

notice is based from the set of possible future situations that could 

come to pass based on the outcome of this rulemaking. The Transport 

Rule is in place and will remain in place regardless of the outcome 

of this rulemaking. If we finalize the proposed rule, a regional haze 

SIP or FIP for an affected state will be able to satisfy the BART

requirement for EGUs (for NOX only or for SO2 and NOX, depending on 

which Transport Rule program applies in that state) merely by 

formally incorporating the Transport Rule into the long-term strategy 

of the SIP.33 If we do not adopt any rule establishing the Transport 

Rule as an alternative to BART, the EGUs in each affected state will 

still be required to participate in the cap-and-trade programs 

established by the Transport Rule. In this case the SIP or FIP would 

also have to apply source-specific BART to all BART-eligible sources 

except any that are found not to be subject to BART due to minimal 

impacts on visibility or any that the state concludes should not be 

further controlled based on its consideration of existing controls, 

cost of additional controls, remaining lifetime of the unit, other 

non-air impacts and visibility impacts from controls. It is important 

to recognize that because of the nature of cap-and-trade programs, 

total state-wide emissions will not be very different, if at all, if 

the EPA were not to make a final determination that participation in 

the Transport Rule trading program satisfied the BART requirements. 

 

33 Such action by a state would not preclude it from also including in 

the SIP source-specific emission limits for EGUs of its choosing.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 56 of 72

Any EGUs that would be required to comply with source-specific BART 

would generate tradable emission allowances that would find buyers 

among the other EGUs in the state. Thus, we expect that the outcome 

of this rule may change how a fixed amount of total emissions from 

EGUs is divided among EGUs in a given affected state. Because of the 

certainty of EGUs collectively meeting the Transport Rule emission 

caps, that fixed amount will generally be substantially less than 

historical total EGU emissions in a given state.

We have concluded that it is not practicable to perform an 

analysis which would attempt to predict exactly which EGUs would have 

higher and lower emissions under the two possible outcomes. We have, 

however, identified the locations of BART-eligible sources in 

Transport Rule-affected states to determine if there are high 

percentages of minority or low-income populations living near such 

sources. These are the sources that conceivably could have higher 

emissions if we finalize the proposed rule than if we do not. An 

analysis of demographic data shows that the average percentage of 

African Americans living within a 3-mile radius of BART-eligible 

sources in Transport Rule-affected states is somewhat higher (six

percent) than the corresponding national average percentage. All 

other socio-demographic parameters evaluated are within two percent 

of the national average percentages, or below the national average 

percentages. The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 

the memorandum entitled “Review of Environmental Justice Impacts,” 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 57 of 72

July 2011, a copy of which is available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0729). Strictly speaking, if we were not to finalize this rule 

and the states (or we, through FIPs) were to impose source-specific 

BART on these sources, other sources might increase their emissions 

under the cap-and-trading programs. Since we do not know which other 

sources might do so, we could not perform a similar demographic 

analysis on such other sources.

We do know that under the Transport Rule, ozone and PM2.5 air 

quality and health risks will be greatly reduced compared either to 

current conditions or to future conditions if there were no Transport 

Rule. In the Transport Rule, the EPA estimated the distribution of 

PM2.5 mortality risks according to race, income, and educational 

attainment before and after implementation of the Transport Rule. In 

that analysis, we found that the Transport Rule market-based regional 

approach to reducing emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs provided the 

greatest PM2.5-related health benefits among populations: (1) most 

susceptible to air pollution impacts, regardless of race; (2) with 

lower levels of educational attainment; (3) living in counties with 

among the highest number of individuals living below the poverty 

line. The analysis also indicates that the Transport Rule, in 

conjunction with the implementation of existing or proposed rules, 

will reduce the disparity in risk between the highest-risk counties 

and the other 95 percent of counties for all races and educational 

levels. This analysis is presented in more detail in the Regulatory 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 58 of 72

Impact Analysis for the Transport Rule which is available in the 

Transport Rule docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491 and from the main EPA 

webpage for the Transport Rule www.epa.gov/airtransport. 

The results of the Transport Rule analysis suggest that regional 

reductions in PM2.5 levels can produce significant human health 

benefits — particularly among populations most susceptible and 

vulnerable to PM2.5 impacts. PM2.5 air quality improvements that would 

be expected under implementation of source-specific BART may differ 

from the Transport Rule in terms of the emission reductions required 

at any given source, especially since states have the discretion to 

determine which BART-eligible sources to control and the level of 

control that is feasible. However, the results of the Transport Rule

assessment suggest that the regional Transport Rule approach provides 

widespread health benefits especially among populations at greatest 

risk. 

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 59 of 72

Page 59 of 72 - Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing 

Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal 

Implementation Plans 

40 CFR Part 52

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

___________________________________

Dated:

___________________________________

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 60 of 72

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 

as follows:

PART 51-[AMENDED]

 1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as 

follows:

 Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q

 2. Section 51.308 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(4) 

to read as follows:

§51.308 Regional haze program requirements

 

(4) A State subject to a trading program established in accordance 

with §52.38 or §52.39 under a Transport Rule Federal Implementation 

Plan need not require BART-eligible fossil fuel-fired electric steam 

generating plants in the State to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for the pollutant covered by such trading program in the State. A 

State that chooses to meet the emission reduction requirements of the 

Transport Rule by submitting a SIP revision that establishes a 

trading program and is approved as meeting the requirements of §52.38 

or §52.39 also need not require BART-eligible fossil fuel-fired 

electric steam generating plants in the State to install, operate, 

and maintain BART for the pollutant covered by such trading program 

in the State. A State may adopt provisions, consistent with the 

requirements applicable to the State for a trading program 
** *E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 61 of 72

established in accordance with §52.38 or §52.39 under the Transport 

Rule Federal Implementation Plan or established under a SIP revision 

that is approved as meeting the requirements of §52.38 or §52.39, for 

a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement 

under §51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable 

impairment from the pollutant covered by such trading program in that 

State. 

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 52 of chapter I of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B-Alabama

2. Section 52.61 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding new 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§52.61 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.308(d)(3), and 51.308(e) for 

protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

*****

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.54 for the sources subject to those requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 62 of 72

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.55 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart K-Florida

3. Section 52.534 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraph (c) as follows:

§52.534 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.305, 51.307, 51.308(d)(3), and 

51.308(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.

*****

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.540 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart L-Georgia

4. Section 52.580 is added to read as follows:

§52.580 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 63 of 72

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.584 with respect to emissions of NOX for the sources subject to 

those requirements.

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.585 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart P-Indiana

5. Section 52.791 is added to read as follows:

§52.791 Visibility protection.

a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not met 

because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection of 

visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.789 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.790 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart Q-Iowa

6. Section 52.842 is added to read as follows:

§52.842 Visibility protection.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 64 of 72

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.840 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.841 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart S-Kentucky

7. Section 52.936 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§52.936 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.307(b)and (c), 51.308(d)(3), and 

51.308(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.

*****

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.940 for the sources subject to those requirements.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 65 of 72

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.941 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart T-Louisiana

8. Section 52.985 is added to read as follows:

§52.985 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.984 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart X-Michigan

9. Section 52.1183 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§52.1183 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.307, 51.308(d)(3), and 

51.308(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.

*****
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 66 of 72

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.1186 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.1187 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart Z-Mississippi

10. Section 52.1279 is added to read as follows:

§52.1279 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.1284 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart AA-Missouri

11. Section 52.1339 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

§52.1339 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.308(d)(3), and 51.308(e) for 

protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 67 of 72

*****

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.1236 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.1327 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart II-North Carolina

12. Section 52.1779 is added to read as follows:

§52.1779 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.1784 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.1785 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart KK-Ohio

13. Section 52.1886 is added to read as follows:

§52.1886 Visibility protection.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 68 of 72

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.1882 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.1883 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart NN-Pennsylvania

14. Section 52.2042 is added to read as follows:

§52.2042 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.2040 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.2041 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart PP-South Carolina
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 69 of 72

15. Section 52.2132 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§52.2132 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.308(d)(3), and 

51.308(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.

*****

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.2140 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.2141 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart RR-Tennessee

16. Section 52.2234 is added to read as follows:

§52.2234 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection 

of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 70 of 72

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.2240 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.2241 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart SS-Texas

17. Section 52.2304 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§52.2304 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.305, 51.308(d)(3), and 51.308(e) for 

protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.

*****

(c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.2283 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.2284 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart VV-Virginia

18. Section 52.2452 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 71 of 72

§52.2452 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.308(d)(3), and 

51.308(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.

*****

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.2440) for the sources subject to those requirements.

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.2441 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart XX-West Virginia

19. Section 52.2533 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 

new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§52.2533 Visibility protection.

(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 

met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.307, 51.308(d)(3), and 

51.308(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.

*****
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During 

Review***

EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060-AR05_Proposal FRN_20111019

Page 72 of 72

(d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 

§52.2540 for the sources subject to those requirements.

(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 

§52.2541 for the sources subject to those requirements.