3712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0329; FRL–9622–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Ohio State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Ohio submitted 

its regional haze plan on March 11, 

2011. The Ohio regional haze plan 

addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) and 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

for states to remedy any existing and 

prevent future anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility at mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area, 

also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’. States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

proposing a limited approval of these 

SIP revisions to implement the regional 

haze requirements for Ohio on the basis 

that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Ohio SIP. In a separate 

action, EPA has previously proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Ohio regional 

haze SIP because of deficiencies in the 

state’s regional haze SIP submittal 

arising from the remand by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA of the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 

Consequently, we are not taking action 

in this notice to address the state’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0329, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0329. 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 Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

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 Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s regional 

haze plan? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3713 

1Areas 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,’’ we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I 

Federal area.’’ 

2Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the State of New Mexico under the 

New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74– 

2–4). 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities that are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

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

nitrates, organic particles, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust) and its 

precursors-sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compound (VOCs). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter. Aerosol 

PM2.5 impairs visibility by scattering 

and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity and 

distance one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range, the distance at 

which an object is barely discernable, in 

many Class I areas 1 in the western 

United States is 100–150 kilometers. 

That is about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

the eastern and Midwestern Class I areas 

of the United States, the average visual 

range is generally less than 30 

kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

RHR 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources known 

as, ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. 

These regulations, codified at 40 CFR 

part 50, subpart P, represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze, the RHR, on July 

1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR, which 

amends 40 CFR part 50, subpart P, 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

subpart P requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in section III. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.2

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. Pollution affecting the 

air quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, 

effectively addressing the problem of 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 

means that states need to develop 

coordinated strategies that take into 

account the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in another 

state. 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes to address visibility impairment 

from a regional perspective because the 

pollutants that lead to regional haze can 

originate from sources located across 

broad geographic areas. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce PM2.5

emissions and other pollutants leading 

to regional haze. 

The Midwest RPO (MRPO) is a 

collaborative effort of state governments 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the Midwest. The 

member states are Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Plans must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

require those sources to install best 

available retrofit technology (BART) 

reducing visibility impairment. The 

specific regional haze SIP requirements 

are discussed in further detail below. 

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 3

(dv) as the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility impairment. This 

visibility metric expresses uniform 

proportional changes in haziness in 

terms of common increments across the 

entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3714 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

conditions. Visibility expressed in 

deciview is determined by using air 

quality measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview. 

The deciview is used in expressing 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs), 

defining baseline, current, and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. The regional haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution. The national goal is a 

return to natural conditions such that 

anthropogenic sources of air pollution 

would no longer impair visibility in 

Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP is submitted and at 

the progress review every five years, 

midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR 

requires states with Class I areas (Class 

I states) to determine the degree of 

impairment in deciviews for the average 

of the 20 percent least impaired (best) 

and 20 percent most impaired (worst) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of its Class I areas. Each 

state must also develop an estimate of 

natural visibility conditions for the 

purpose of comparing progress toward 

the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural 

concentrations of pollutants that cause 

visibility impairment and then 

calculating total light extinction based 

on those estimates. EPA has provided 

guidance to states regarding how to 

calculate baseline, natural, and current 

visibility conditions in documents 

titled, EPA’s Guidance for Estimating 

Natural Visibility conditions under the 

Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 

(EPA–454/B–03–005 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 

September 2003 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIP, due 

December 17, 2007, the ‘‘baseline 

visibility conditions’’ are the starting 

points for assessing ‘‘current’’ visibility 

impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

best days and 20 percent worst days for 

each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. 

Using monitoring data for 2000 through 

2004, states are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area, based on the 

average of annual values over the fiveyear period. The comparison of initial 

baseline visibility conditions to natural 

visibility conditions indicates the 

amount of improvement necessary to 

attain natural visibility, while 

comparisons of future conditions 

against baseline conditions will indicate 

the amount of progress made. In general, 

the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two distinct RPGs, 

one for the best days and one for the 

worst days for every Class I area for each 

approximately 10-year implementation 

period. The RHR does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a 

state with a mandatory Class I area 

(Class I state) must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the worst 

days over the approximately 10-year 

period of the SIP and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the best 

days. 

Class I states have significant 

discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 169A of 

the CAA and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. The states must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

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

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (‘‘uniform 

rate of progress’’ or ‘‘glide path’’) and 

the emissions reduction needed to 

achieve that rate of progress over the 

approximately 10-year period of the SIP. 

In setting RPGs, each Class I state must 

also consult with potentially 

contributing states, i.e. those states that 

may affect visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain older large stationary 

sources to address visibility impacts 

from these sources. Specifically, CAA 

section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to 

revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

BART as determined by the state. The 

set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in 

CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (BART 

Guidelines) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. A state must use the 

approach in the BART Guidelines in 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating units 

(EGU) with total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts. States are 

encouraged, but not required, to follow 

the BART Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3715 

VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility 

in Class I areas. 

States may select an exemption 

threshold value for their BART 

modeling under the BART Guidelines, 

below which a BART-eligible source 

may be considered to have a small 

enough contribution to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area to 

warrant being exempted from the BART 

requirement. The state must document 

this exemption threshold value in the 

SIP and must state the basis for its 

selection of that value. The exemption 

threshold set by the state should not be 

higher than 0.5 dv. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual source’s 

impact. 

The state must identify potential 

BART sources in its SIP, described as 

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

and document its BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

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

to consider the following factors: (1) The 

costs of compliance; (2) the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. The BART 

controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

state’s regional haze SIP. CAA section 

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

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

The RHR also allows states to 

implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART only if the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater progress toward the national 

visibility goal than implementing BART 

controls. EPA made such a 

demonstration for CAIR under 

regulations issued in 2005 revising the 

regional haze program. 70 FR 39104 

(July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations 

provided that states participating in the 

CAIR trading program under 40 CFR 

part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved 

CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the 

CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

in 40 CFR part 97 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). CAIR is not applicable to 

emissions of PM, so states were still 

required to conduct a BART analysis for 

PM emissions from EGUs subject to 

BART for that pollutant. 

CAIR was later found to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and the rule was remanded to 

EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left 

CAIR in place until the Agency replaced 

it. Id. EPA replaced CAIR with the 

Transport Rule in August 2011. 

On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed 

to find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would be obtained by 

implementing BART for SO2 and NOX

for BART-subject EGUs in the area 

subject to the Transport Rule. 76 FR 

82219. Based on the proposed finding, 

EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 

allow states, including Ohio, to meet the 

requirements of an alternative program 

in lieu of BART by participation in the 

trading programs under the Transport 

Rule. EPA has not taken final action on 

that rule. 

D. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submission to meet applicable 

RPGs. The LTS must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

RPGs for all Class I areas within or 

affected by emissions from the state. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

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

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to address interstate visibility 

issues sufficiently. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS. The 

seven factors are: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

RAVI LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c), regarding the LTS for 

RAVI, to require that the RAVI plan 

must provide for a periodic review and 

SIP revision not less frequently than 

every three years until the date of 

submission of the state’s first plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 

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

its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze on 

or before this date. It must also submit 

the first such coordinated LTS with its 

first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress 

reports evaluating progress towards 

RPGs, must be submitted consistent 

with the schedule for SIP submission 

and periodic progress reports set forth 

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

respectively. The periodic review of a 

state’s LTS must be submitted to EPA as 

a SIP revision and report on both 

regional haze and RAVI impairment. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3716 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the 

requirement for a monitoring strategy 

for measuring, characterizing, and 

reporting of regional haze visibility 

impairment that is representative of all 

mandatory Class I areas within the state. 

The strategy must be coordinated with 

the monitoring strategy required in 

section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance 

with this requirement may be met 

through participation in the IMPROVE 

network, meaning that the state reviews 

and uses monitoring data from the 

network. The monitoring strategy must 

also provide for additional monitoring 

sites if the IMPROVE network is not 

sufficient to determine whether RPGs 

will be met. The monitoring strategy is 

due with the first regional haze SIP and 

it must be reviewed every five years. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible in 

electronic format; 

• A statewide inventory of emissions 

of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The inventory must include emissions 

for a baseline year, emissions for the 

most recent year with available data, 

and future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility; 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018 with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

G. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMS) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Ohio’s 

regional haze plan? 

Ohio submitted its regional haze plan 

on March 11, 2011, which included 

revisions to the Ohio SIP to address 

regional haze. 

A. Class I Areas 

States are required to address regional 

haze affecting Class I areas within a 

state and in Class I areas outside the 

state that may be affected by that state’s 

emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Ohio does 

not have any Class I areas within the 

state. Ohio reviewed technical analyses 

conducted by MRPO and other regional 

planning organizations to determine 

what Class I areas outside the state are 

affected by Ohio emission sources. 

MRPO conducted both a back trajectory 

analysis and modeling to determine the 

affects of its states’ emissions. Ohio also 

used assessments by MANE–VU, the 

regional planning organization for 

Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states 

and by VISTAS, the regional planning 

organization for Southeastern states. 

Finally, Ohio used a joint state 

assessment by Arkansas and Missouri. 

The conclusion from these five 

technical analyses is that Ohio 

emissions affect 15 Class I areas. The 

affected Class I areas are: Caney Creek 

and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas in 

Arkansas; Mammoth Cave in Kentucky; 

Acadia National Park and Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area in Maine; HerculesGlades and Mingo Wilderness Areas in 

Missouri; Great Gulf Wilderness Area in 

New Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness 

Area in New Jersey; Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park in North 

Carolina and Tennessee; Lye Brook 

Wilderness Area in Vermont; James 

River Face Wilderness Area and 

Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; 

and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness 

Area in West Virginia. Ohio has thereby 

satisfied the requirement to identify the 

Class I areas it affects. 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

The RHR requires Class I states to 

calculate the baseline and natural 

conditions for their Class I areas. Ohio 

does not have any Class I areas. 

Therefore, Ohio is not required to 

submit such calculations. 

C. RPGs 

Class I states must set RPGs that 

achieve reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions. 

Ohio does not have any Class I areas, so 

it does not need to set any RPGs. Ohio 

did consult with affected Class I states 

to ensure that it achieves its fair share 

of the overall emission reductions 

necessary to achieve the RPGs of Class 

I areas that it affects. 

Ohio consulted with the FLMs during 

the development of its regional haze 

plan. Ohio submitted a draft of its 

regional haze plan to the FLMs on 

September 9, 2008. The FLMs provided 

comments on October 16, 2008. Ohio 

sent the FLMs a revised regional haze 

plan on December 29, 2008. Ohio 

revised its plan based on the initial 

comments. Ohio later held a public 

hearing on February 26, 2009, which 

also concluded the public comment. 

The Forest Service gave additional 

comments in a February 25, 2009, letter. 

A joint March 10, 2009, letter from the 

National Park Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service also provided 

comments on Ohio’s plan. Ohio has 

committed to continue to consult with 

the FLMs as it develops future SIP 

revisions and progress reports. 

Ohio participated in meetings and on 

conference call with affected Class I 

states and RPOs. Ohio consulted with 

Minnesota and Michigan on their Class 

I areas. Ohio also participated in 

MRPO’s inter-RPO consultations. 

MANE–VU, the RPO for the 

Northeastern states, facilitated 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3717 

consultation between Ohio and Maine, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, and 

Vermont. Ohio also consulted with 

Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North 

Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and 

Virginia. 

Ohio included the MPRO technical 

support document (TSD) in its 

submission. In Section 5 of the TSD, 

MPRO assessed the reasonable progress 

using the four factors required by the 

RHR. The factors considered are the cost 

of compliance, time needed, energy and 

non-air impacts, and remaining useful 

life. 

In analyzing the visibility benefits of 

existing programs, MPRO considered 

existing on-highway mobile source, offhighway mobile source, area source, 

power plant, and other point source 

programs. MPRO also included 

reductions from the since vacated CAIR 

in its analysis. Following the court 

vacatur of CAIR, MRPO performed an 

additional analysis intended to project 

air quality in the absence of CAIR. 

MPRO projected visibility in 2018 under 

three scenarios in this analysis. The first 

scenario reflected simple emissions 

growth from a baseline that reflects 

power plant emissions in 2007, prior to 

most of the emission controls pursuant 

to CAIR being installed. The second 

scenario added reductions for power 

plants controls that are enforceable 

under federal or state consent decrees, 

permits, or rules. The final scenario also 

added power plant controls that the 

utilities anticipated installing, 

presumably under the expectation that 

EPA would issue a rule to replace CAIR, 

plus power plant controls representing 

BART where applicable. The MRPO 

analysis showed that many Class I areas, 

including those impacted by Ohio, will 

fail to meet the 2018 RPGs with the 

emission reductions resulting from 

CAIR. 

Ohio believes that implementation of 

the existing control measures listed in 

section 10 of its regional haze plan is 

expected to provide its fair share of 

emission reductions that should allow 

affected Class I areas to meet the RPGs. 

However, CAIR is one of the existing 

control measures and the MRPO 

analysis shows emission reductions 

equivalent to the scale of CAIR are 

needed to meet RPGs. Reliance on CAIR 

as part of a state’s LTS to achieve the 

state-adopted RPGs is discussed in 

section E of this notice. 

D. BART 

Ohio conducted a BART analysis 

using the criteria in the BART Guidance 

at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y to 

identify all of the BART-eligible 

sources, assess whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART and 

determine the BART controls. These 

criteria are: (1) One or more emissions 

units at the facility fit within one of the 

26 categories listed in the BART 

Guidelines; (2) emissions unit(s) was 

constructed on or after August 6, 1962, 

and was in existence prior to August 6, 

1977; and (3) potential emissions of any 

visibility-impairing pollutant from 

subject units are 250 tons or more per 

year. Ohio initially identified 39 BARTeligible sources, including 18 EGUs and 

21 other facilities. Ohio did not consider 

EGUs in its analysis as it chose to meet 

BART requirements for EGUs for SO2

and NOX by participation in CAIR, and 

because the particulate matter emissions 

from EGUs were found not to warrant 

further control. Ohio found that 12 nonEGUs remained as potential BART 

sources after further screening. Ohio 

then used the modeling protocol MRPO 

developed to determine the sources 

subject to BART. MRPO conferred with 

its states, EPA, and the FLMs in 

developing its BART modeling protocol. 

Consistent with EPA guidance, the state 

used a 0.5 dv impact (98th percentile) 

as the threshold for a source to 

contribute to visibility impairment, 

concluding that such a threshold 

provided an appropriate means of 

identifying which sources cause 

sufficient visibility impairment to 

warrant being subject to BART. Ohio 

found that just one non-EGU facility 

was subject to BART, P.H. Glatfelter of 

Ross County. 

Ohio performed a five factor BART 

determination of the Glatfelter facility. 

Glatfelter added NOX controls to both 

units in 2001 and 2003. Additional NOX

combustions controls are technically 

infeasible for tangentially fired boilers. 

Ohio determined that post-combustion 

control was unnecessary because 

additional NOX reductions would have 

negligible visibility impact. Ohio 

concluded that operating the units at the 

current emission limits satisfies the 

BART requirement for NOX. 

Ohio evaluated several SO2 control 

devices for the Glatfelter boilers. The 

BART determination process lead to 

narrowing the potential control devices 

down to three options—wet flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD), semi-dry FGD, 

and over-fire air (OFA) with a sorbent 

injection system (SIS). Ohio and MPRO 

conducted visibility modeling of the 

BART options. Modeling of the FGD 

controls indicates an average of less 

than one day with impairment over 0.5 

dv at affected Class I sites, which does 

not contribute to visibility impairment. 

Both FGD controls are expected to 

achieve a 90 percent reduction in SO2

emissions. The OFA/SIS option would 

reduce emissions by about 60 percent 

and yield modeling impacts over 0.5 dv 

on up to 7 days a year. Ohio selected 

semi-dry FGD as the BART SO2 control, 

which is expected to reduce SO2

emissions by 20,515 tons per year. 

P.H. Glatfelter is subject to an 

alternative to BART. Ohio issued a 

permit on March 7, 2011, with the 

limitations on Glatfelter’s Boilers 7 and 

8. P.H. Glatfelter must operate its PM 

control devices, cyclones and 

electrostatic precipitators, and its NOX

control devices, low-NOX burners with 

over-fire air, on both units. The NOX

controls are to be operated all year 

instead of just the May 1 to September 

30 control period. P.H. Glatfelter will 

add a control device, use alternate fuel, 

use low sulfur fuel, use a combination 

of measures, or permanently shut down 

a boiler to achieve a SO2 emission limit 

of 24,930 pounds per calendar day. 

Ohio’s permit specifies that this limit is 

for Boilers 7 and 8 combined. 

Continuous emission monitor systems 

will be used to measure the daily SO2

emissions. P.H. Glatfelter will comply 

with the alternative to BART emission 

limits by December 31, 2014. 

EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

alternative to BART limits for P.H. 

Glatfelter. Ohio is requiring P.H. 

Glatfelter to continue operation of its 

PM and NOX controls. Modeling shows 

negligible visibility benefit for PM 

reductions. The BART determination 

indicated that additional NOX control is 

unnecessary and Glatfelter will use its 

controls all year long. The SO2 emission 

limit of 24,930 pounds per calendar day 

given to Boilers 7 and 8 in the permit 

are slightly more stringent that what 

Ohio determined as BART. The semidry FGD that Ohio selected as the BART 

SO2 control would have an emission 

limit of 24,931 pounds SO2 per day for 

both units. EPA is satisfied with the 

limits because they are the as stringent 

as what Ohio determined to fulfill 

BART requirements. EPA proposes in 

particular to approve permit number 

P0103673 issued on March 7, 2011, that 

imposes these limitations on the P.H. 

Glatfelter facility. 

Ohio used a cumulative modeling 

analysis by MRPO to determine that PM 

and VOC emissions will not cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment. The 

MRPO analysis of all point sources in 

the region showed a cumulative impact 

of less than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. 

PM and VOC emissions from just Ohio 

sources would be well less than from all 

states and even smaller when 

considering only 39 of those sources are 

BART-eligible. Ohio therefore concludes 

that PM and VOC emissions from its 

BART sources have a negligible 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3718 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

visibility impact. Thus, it did not 

consider PM or VOC reductions in its 

BART determinations. 

E. LTS 

Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states’ regional 

haze programs must include an LTS for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting the national visibility goal. 

Ohio’s LTS must address visibility 

improvement for the Class I areas 

impacted by Ohio sources. Section 

51.308(d)(3) requires that Ohio consult 

with the affected states in order to 

develop a coordinated emission 

management strategy. A contributing 

state, such as Ohio, must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I areas 

affected by Ohio sources. As described 

in section III.E., the LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures 

Ohio will use to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPGs for all 

Class I areas affected by Ohio emissions. 

At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR 

identifies seven factors that a state must 

consider in developing its LTS: (A) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing 

programs, (B) measures to mitigate 

impact from construction, (C) emission 

limits to achieve the RPG, (D) 

replacement and retirement of sources, 

(E) smoke management techniques, (F) 

federally enforceable emission limits 

and control measures, and (G) the net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

emission changes over the LTS period. 

Ohio considered the seven factors in 

developing its LTS. 

Ohio relied on MPRO’s modeling and 

analysis along with its emission 

information in developing an LTS. Ohio 

consulted with Class I states through its 

participation in MRPO. MRPO 

facilitated consultations with other 

Midwest states and with states in other 

regions through inter-RPO processes. 

Ohio considered the factors set out in 

51.308(d)(3)(v) in developing its LTS. 

Based on these factors and the MRPO’s 

technical analysis, in conjunction with 

RPGs that were set by the pertinent 

states in consultation with Ohio and 

other states, Ohio concludes that 

existing control programs adequately 

address Ohio’s impact on Class I areas 

and suffice to meet their RPGs by 2018 

by implementing the control programs 

already in place. These existing control 

programs include federal motor vehicle 

emission control program, reformulated 

gasoline, emission limits for area 

sources of VOCs, Title IV, the NOX SIP 

Call, NOX Reasonable Achievable 

Control Technology, Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

standards, and federal non-road 

standards for construction equipment 

and vehicles. These programs are fully 

enforceable, provide for the mitigation 

of new source impacts through new 

source permitting programs, and reflect 

appropriate consideration of current 

programs and prospective changes in 

emissions. 

As noted in EPA’s separate notice 

proposing revisions to the RHR (76 FR 

82219, December 30, 2011), a number of 

states, including Ohio, fully consistent 

with EPA’s regulations at the time, 

relied on the trading programs of CAIR 

to satisfy the BART requirement and the 

requirement for a LTS sufficient to 

achieve the state-adopted RPGs. In that 

notice, we proposed a limited 

disapproval of Ohio’s LTS based on its 

reliance on CAIR. Comments on that 

proposed determination may be directed 

to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729. We are proposing to find that the 

remaining elements of Ohio’s LTS meet 

the requirements of the RHR. 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

Ohio’s monitoring strategy relies on 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

There is an IMPROVE Protocol 

monitoring site in Quaker City, Ohio. 

Ohio also runs a network of criteria 

pollutant monitors that provides data to 

analyze air quality problems including 

regional haze. Ohio is required under 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(4) to have procedures for 

using the monitoring data to determine 

the contribution of emissions from 

within the state to affected Class I areas. 

Ohio developed procedures in 

conjunction with the MRPO. The 

procedures are detailed in the MRPO 

TSD. EPA finds that Ohio’s regional 

haze plan meets the monitoring 

requirements for the RHR and that 

Ohio’s network of monitoring sites is 

satisfactory to measure air quality and 

assess its contribution to regional haze. 

G. Comments 

Ohio took comments on its proposed 

regional haze plan. It held a public 

hearing on February 26, 2009, which 

concluded the public comment period. 

Ohio also received comments from the 

FLMs as part of the consultation 

process. Evidence of the public notice 

and evidence of the public hearing were 

submitted to EPA. 

Ohio provided the comments it 

received and its responses in a 

document within its regional haze plan. 

Ohio revised portions of its plan in 

response to comments. This includes 

emission limits on the non-EGU BART 

facility being tightened from Ohio’s 

draft plan. Ohio has satisfied the 

requirements from 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V to provide evidence that it 

gave public notice, took comments, and 

that it compiled and responded to 

comments. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of revisions to the Ohio SIP, submitted 

on March 11, 2011, addressing regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

The revisions seek to satisfy CAA and 

regional haze rule requirements for 

states to remedy any existing 

anthropogenic and prevent future 

impairment of visibility at Class I areas. 

EPA finds that Ohio’s submission 

satisfies BART requirements for nonEGUs, most notably by providing new, 

tighter emission limits for the Glatfelter 

facility in Ross County, Ohio, Ohio’s 

submission provides an approvable 

analysis of the emission reductions 

needed to satisfy reasonable progress 

and other regional haze planning 

requirements, and Ohio’s submission 

meets other regional haze planning 

requirements such as identification of 

affected Class I areas and provision of a 

monitoring plan. Because for these 

reasons Ohio’s submission helps 

address regional haze planning 

requirements, EPA is also proposing 

limited approval of Ohio’s submission 

for its SIP strengthening effect. 

In a separate action, EPA has 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Ohio regional haze 

SIP because of deficiencies in the state’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) 

to EPA of CAIR. 76 FR 82219, December 

30, 2011. Consequently, we are not 

taking action in this notice to address 

the state’s reliance on CAIR to meet 

certain regional haze requirements. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3719 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1514 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0455–201131(b); 

FRL–9621–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina: 

Approval of Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan for the GreensboroWinston-Salem-High Point 1-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Area To Maintain 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the North Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to 

EPA on April 13, 2011, with 

supplemental information submitted on 

May 18, 2011, by the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, through the Department of 

Air Quality. The revisions propose to 

modify North Carolina’s SIP to address 

the required maintenance plan for the 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for the 

Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, 

North Carolina 1-hour ozone 

maintenance area, hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘the Triad Area.’’ The Triad Area is 

comprised of Davidson, Forsyth, and 

Guilford and a portion of Davie County. 

This maintenance plan was submitted to 

ensure the continued attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the 

year 2018 in the Triad Area. EPA is 

approving these SIP revisions pursuant 

to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. The 

submitted maintenance plan meets all of 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, and is consistent with 

EPA’s guidance. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2011–0455 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011– 

0455,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri 

Farngalo or Jane Spann, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Zuri 

Farngalo may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9152 or by electronic mail 

address farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. Jane 

Spann may be reached by phone at (404) 

562–9029 or by electronic mail address 

spann.jane@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone 

NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. The current 

action, however, is being taken to 

address requirements under the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Requirements for the 

Triad Area under the 2008 NAAQS will 

be addressed in the future. 

For additional information see the 

direct final rule which is published in 

the Rules Section of this Federal 

Register. In the Final Rules Section of 

this Federal Register, EPA is approving 

the State’s SIP revision as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

Dated: January 12, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1358 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS