Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82219 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729; FRL–9614–7] 

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 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, 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 CAIRdependent regional haze SIPs, in this 

action, the 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 

being proposed in this action. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before February 13, 2012. 

Public Hearing. The public hearing 

will be held January 17, 2012. Please 

refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on the comment 

period and the public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–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–HQ– 

OAR–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 Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 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, DC 

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 Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to 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 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, DC. 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. 

Public Hearing. The public hearing 

will be held on January 17, 2012, at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1st Floor, Building C, Room C111C, 109 

T. W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. The public 

hearing will start at 10 a.m. and end at 

3 p.m. or until the last registered 

speaker has spoken. Because this 

hearing is being held at U.S. government 

facilities, everyone planning to attend 

the hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. In addition, you will 

need to obtain a property pass for any 

personal belongings you bring with you. 

Upon leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to 

the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may 

only be used inside the classroom and 

outside of the building, and 

demonstrations will not be allowed on 

federal property for security reasons. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information on this document, 

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) 541–9407; fax 

number: (919) 541–0824; email address: 

keating.martha@epa.gov. 

To register to speak at the hearing or 

attend the hearing on this document, 

contact Ms. Pamela Long, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Air 

Quality Policy Division, Mail code 

C504–01, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone (919) 541–0641; fax 

number: (919) 541–5509; email address: 

long.pam@epa.gov. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82220 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

2See 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). 

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 Rule 1 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 SIC a NAICSb

Electric Services ............ 492 221111, 221112, 

221113, 221119, 

221121, 221122 

aStandard 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. 

• 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 public hearing? 

The hearing will be held on January 

17, 2012, at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1st Floor, Building 

C, Room C111C, 109 T. W. Alexander 

Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27709. The public hearing will start at 

10 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. or until the 

last registered speaker has spoken. 

Because this hearing is being held at 

U.S. government facilities, everyone 

planning to attend the hearing should be 

prepared to show valid picture 

identification to the security staff in 

order to gain access to the meeting 

room. In addition, you will need to 

obtain a property pass for any personal 

belongings you bring with you. Upon 

leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to 

the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may 

only be used inside the classroom and 

outside of the building, and 

demonstrations will not be allowed on 

federal property for security reasons. To 

register to speak at the hearing on this 

document, contact Ms. Pamela Long at 

(919) 541–0641 before 5 p.m. on January 

13, 2012. For updates and additional 

information on a public hearing, please 

check the EPA’s Web site 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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82221 

3See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), and Federal 

Implementation Plans for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin To Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Ozone finalized on 

December 15, 2011 for more details. For purposes 

of this proposed rule, the Transport Rule includes 

all of the states (28) included in the final Transport 

Rule and the supplemental rule. 

4The 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. 

5The states for which the EPA has previously 

proposed limited disapproval of regional haze SIPs 

because of reliance on CAIR are Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. 

6 Visual range is the greatest distance at which a 

dark object can be viewed against the sky. 

7Areas 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 

Continued 

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 3 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 sourcespecific 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. 

In this action, we are also proposing 

a limited disapproval of the regional 

haze SIPs that have been submitted by 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 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.4 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.5

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 

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. States may also include in 

such a SIP revision provisions 

applicable to specific EGU BART 

sources that they anticipate (or find after 

implementation of the Transport Rule) 

to continue to cause visibility 

impairment that the state wishes to 

reduce. 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 

regardless of whether a state chooses to 

submit a SIP revision under subpart 

52.38 and 52.39 or remain subject to a 

FIP. 

We are not proposing to disapprove 

the reasonable progress targets for 2018 

that are an element of the long-term 

strategies for these states. 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. The overall EGU emission 

reductions from the Transport Rule are 

larger than the EGU reductions achieved 

by CAIR and the substitution of the 

Transport Rule for CAIR does not 

weaken any affected state’s long-term 

strategy. We intend to act on the 

reasonable progress goals and long-term 

strategies (including the Transport Rule) 

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 

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 range 6 in many 

mandatory Class I federal areas 7 in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82222 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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.’’ 

8The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

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

9While the RHR directs the state to conduct the 

air quality modeling study, as described in section 

III.C.2, the 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. 

10As explained in section IV.A., the ‘‘decline’’ is 

relative to modeled future baseline visibility 

conditions in the absence of any BART or 

alternative program control requirements. 

western United States is about 60–100 

miles, or about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

most of the eastern Class I areas of the 

United States, the average visual range 

is less than 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 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 sources 8 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART, 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 days.9 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 area,10 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 nonBART alternatives has 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 (DC 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 (DC Cir. 

2006), the court found EPA’s twopronged visibility test to be a 

‘‘reasonable notion of reasonable 

progress’’ and upheld our determination 

that states could rely on CAIR, as 

discussed below, as an alternative 

program to BART for EGUs in the CAIRaffected 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82223 

11See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; 

modified by 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). 

12See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

such SIP revisions were already 

overdue, CAIR also promulgated FIPs 

for the affected states establishing a capand-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 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-andtrade 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-than-BART,’’ 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-than-BART’’ and 

the upholding of this determination by 

the court in 2006, the DC Circuit Court 

ruled on several petitions for review 

challenging CAIR on various grounds. 

As a result of this litigation, the DC 

Circuit Court remanded CAIR to the 

EPA, but later decided not to vacate the 

rule.11 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, 

2011.12 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 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, 

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 

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-qualityassured 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 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 BARTrelated 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 sourcespecific BART. Specifically, we are 

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 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 

EPA invites comments on these 

proposed revisions. 

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). BART for 

emissions of other visibility impairing 

pollutants (e.g., primary 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82224 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

13Under section 51.302, the affected federal land 

manager may certify that there exists reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) in a 

mandatory Class I federal area. This certification is 

an extraordinary measure to address localized 

impacts due to a specific source or sources. The 

EPA and federal land managers will work together 

regarding the review of SIPs (or the development of 

FIPs) to respond to a RAVI certification when one 

is made, within the better-than-BART construct for 

regional haze and in accordance with section 

51.302 and section 51.308(e)(4). States may also 

include in their SIPs provisions applicable to a 

specific source even if no federal land management 

agency has made such a reasonable attribution. 

14The 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. 

15The 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 site. Therefore, the analysis could not be 

completed for IMPROVE sites that did not have 

complete ambient data for 2005. 

16 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/B–03–004, 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 

source-specific BART. 

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 and other 

visibility impairing pollutants. 

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 

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 final sentence of section 51.308(e)(4) 

in the regional haze regulations. This 

language allows a state to address 

BART, when it is required based on 

reasonable attribution of visibility 

impairment at a Class I area to a 

particular source by a federal land 

management agency, by including a 

geographic enhancement in its SIP.13

For example, a geographic enhancement 

in the form of adjusted allocations at a 

BART-subject source might take the 

place of source-specific emission rate 

limits. Use of a geographic enhancement 

in the context of reasonable attribution 

of visibility impairment at a Class I area 

will be addressed in separate EPA or 

state actions on a case-by-case basis in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.302. 

IV. Proposed Determination That the 

Transport Rule Is an Approvable 

Alternative to BART 

A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test 

As described in section III.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 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 source-specific 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. The future 

projected baseline also accounts for 

other non-Transport Rule constraints on 

EGU emissions including the Acid Rain 

Program, the NOX SIP Call, New Source 

Performance Standards, Title V permits, 

any state laws and consent order 

requiring emission reductions, and any 

other permanent and enforceable 

binding reduction commitments. 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, in applying the 

first prong of the test to the Transport 

Rule, we used a future (2014) projected 

baseline.14 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 sourcespecific 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. In 

addition, 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.15 There were 140 such Class I 

areas represented by 96 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.16 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82225 

17The ‘‘eastern’’ Transport Rule modeling grid 

used a horizontal resolution of 12 kilometers (km). 

18The 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. 

19The 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. 

20See 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. 

21See The NEEDS User Guide: http:// 

www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/ 

CSAPR/docs/Guide_to_NEEDSv410.pdf which is 

found at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/ 

epa-ipm/transport.html. 

of the Transport Rule modeling 

domain.17 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 

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.18 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 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.19 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.20 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 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.E, 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-andtrade 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 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 

BART-eligible EGUS outside the 

Transport Rule region (‘‘Transport Rule 

+ BART-elsewhere’’). The latter scenario 

reflects the fact that source-specific 

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 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, 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 megawatts 

(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 pounds per million Btu (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.21 The NEEDS also contains 

information on scrubber efficiency and 

emission rates. For scrubbed BARTVerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Dec 29, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\30DEP1.SGM 30DEP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82226 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

22States subject to the Transport Rule 

requirements during the ozone season only are 

Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and 

Florida. 

23Extensive documentation of the IPM platform 

may be found at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 

progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html. 

24 In the context of this action, when we refer to 

nationwide emissions or a nationwide analysis, we 

are referring to the contiguous 48 states. 

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. 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 season 

only.22 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 [*] 

Dry turbo-fired ............................................................................................................ 0.32 0.23 [*] 

Wet bottom tangential-fired ....................................................................................... 0.62 [*] [*] 

Cyclone ...................................................................................................................... 0.10 0.10 0.10 

* Not applicable. 

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 

To estimate emissions expected from 

the scenarios described in section IV.C, 

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 least-cost 

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/.23 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 + BARTelsewhere’’ achieved greater emission 

reductions nationwide 24 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 + BARTelsewhere’’ (‘‘Nationwide BART’’ 

minus ‘‘Transport 

Rule + BARTelsewhere’’) 

Nationwide SO2 ....................................................................... 7,160 3,820 2,918 902 

Nationwide NOX ....................................................................... 1,946 1,798 1,756 42 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82227 

25See 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 finalized on December 15, 

2011, are included in the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ control scenario. (The ozone season 

budget for Kansas was not finalized on December 

15, 2011.) 

26See 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. 

27See 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. 

28See 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-p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf. 

29See Technical Support Document for 

Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART 

Alternative, Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729. 

30The results for Pine Mountain and Mazatzal 

were the same because they are both represented by 

the same IMPROVE monitoring site (Ike’s Backbone, 

IKBA). 

31Changes in visibility were rounded to the 

nearest 0.1 deciviews. Therefore, any changes that 

were less than 0.05 were rounded down and treated 

as zero. Any changes that were 0.05 or greater were 

rounded up and treated as potential degradation. 

The IPM projections of NOX and SO2

emissions from EGUs for the ‘‘Transport 

Rule + BART-elsewhere’’ control 

scenario summarized on an annual basis 

in Table 2, which were used to arrive at 

the modeling results presented in 

section VI.E, are based on the state 

budgets prescribed in the final 

Transport Rule published on August 8, 

2011, and the supplemental proposal 

finalized on December 15, 2011.25 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 + BARTelsewhere’’ control scenario will still be 

substantially below emissions in the 

‘‘Base Case’’ scenario. Therefore, we 

believe that the modeling results in 

section VI.E comparing these two 

scenarios based on the emissions from 

the final Transport Rule, showing that 

the first prong of the better-than-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, even if the proposed increases 

to state budgets are finalized, the 

‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’ 

control scenario is still projected to 

result in about 26,000 tons more NOX

emission reductions than ‘‘Nationwide 

BART’’ and about 821,000 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 twopronged test. A sensitivity analysis that 

examines the impact of the proposed 

state budget increases on visibility 

improvement is presented in Appendix 

C of the TSD. 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 + BARTelsewhere’’ 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 detail in the TSD for the Transport 

Rule.26 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 guidance 27 and 

the regional haze air quality modeling 

guidance.28 The visibility projections 

for each Class I area are presented in the 

air quality modeling TSD.29

The cornerstone of our modeling 

process was the 2014 ‘‘Base Case’’ 

modeling scenario, which contains 

emissions for 2014 based on predicted 

growth and existing emissions controls. 

We used model-predicted changes in 

visibility impairment along with the 

observed base year visibility values to 

estimate future visibility impairment at 

each Class I area. We applied the 

relative predicted change in visibility 

(expressed as a percent) from the model, 

due to emissions changes, to the base 

year visibility values to estimate future 

visibility. The projected visibility values 

were based on emissions changes 

between the 2005 base year inventory 

and the 2014 inventory. After we 

established the future year 2014 ‘‘Base 

Case’’ visibility values, we calculated 

estimated visibility improvements at 

each Class I area by modeling the 

‘‘Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere’’ 

control strategy as well as the 

‘‘Nationwide BART’’ strategy in 2014. 

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 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 + BARTelsewhere’’ 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 or 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 the 

20 percent worst days.30 There was also 

a predicted degradation of 0.05 

deciviews on the 20 percent best days 

at Bryce Canyon National Park in 

Utah.31 While not part of the twopronged test, we also compared the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82228 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

32Appendix B of the TSD in the docket for this 

action provides more information on this aspect of 

the CAMx modeling results. 

33Appendix B of the TSD in the docket for this 

action provides more information on this issue. 

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.32 Based on that 

investigation, we consider the visibility 

projections for the western portion of 

the national modeling domain that 

indicate potential degradation in four 

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 

‘‘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 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/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 mg/m3 in the 2014 

base case to 0.002 mg/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 + BARTelsewhere’’ scenario, the checkerboard 

pattern of nitrate differences in Arizona 

and southern Utah show no logical 

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.33

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 mg/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 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 

Appendix B of 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 programs in the eastern 

U.S. Consequently, we are proposing 

that the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ 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. 

The second prong of the test assesses 

whether the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ scenario results in greater 

average visibility improvement at 

affected Class I areas compared to the 

‘‘Nationwide BART’’ scenario. To 

determine if ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ 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 + BART-elsewhere’’ 

alternative was greater than 

‘‘Nationwide BART’’ on both the 20 

percent best and 20 percent worst days. 

Thus, the ‘‘Transport Rule + BARTelsewhere’’ 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82229 

TABLE 3—AVERAGE VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT IN 2014 V. 2014 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 1.0 

20 percent Best Days ....................................................................................................... 0.3 0.2 

140 Class I Areas in the Western and Eastern Transport Rule Modeling Domains: 

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 programs 

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 section 52.38 and/or section 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 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, 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 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 Transport Rule) 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 Kentucky, Tennessee, 

Virginia and West Virginia. The 

remedies for the limited disapprovals 

previously proposed and those that are 

proposed in this action are 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 state-adopted 

reasonable progress goals. The FIPs 

apply only to EGUs in the affected states 

and only to pollutants covered by the 

Transport Rule programs 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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82230 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 programs 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 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 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 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 BARTeligible 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 

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), (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82231 

34Such action by a state would not preclude it 

from also including in the SIP source-specific 

emission limits for EGUs of its choosing. 

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 EPA 

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 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 programs apply in that state) 

merely by formally incorporating the 

Transport Rule into the long-term 

strategy of the SIP.34 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-andtrade 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 programs 

satisfied the BART requirements. Any 

EGUs participating in the Transport 

Rule trading programs 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 the 

Transport 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 of 

emissions 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 Transport 

Rule trading programs and sourcespecific BART. 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 (18 percent) than the 

corresponding national average (12 

percent). 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 titled, ‘‘Demographic 

Proximity Analysis for BART-Eligible 

Electric Generating Units,’’ July 2011, a 

copy of which is available in the docket 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729). 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 capand-trade 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 marketbased 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; 

and (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 Impact Analysis for the 

Transport Rule which is available in the 

Transport Rule docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0491 and from the main EPA Web 

page 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82232 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

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: December 23, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, parts 51 and 52 of chapter I 

of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are 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)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.308 Regional haze program 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(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 fuelfired 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 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. 

* * * * * 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

3. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

4. Section 52.61 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

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 and 51.308(d)(3) and 

(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. 

(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 

5. Section 52.534 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (c) to read 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, and 

51.308(d)(3) and (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 

6. 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 (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 § 52.584 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 

7. 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 (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 

8. Section 52.842 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.842 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(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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 82233 

Subpart S—Kentucky 

9. Section 52.936 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (a) 

and (b) and adding paragraphs (c) and 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.936 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(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. 

(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 

10. 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 (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 

11. Section 52.1183 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

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, and 

51.308(d)(3) and (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 § 52.1186 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 

12. 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 (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 

13. Section 52.1339 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

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 and 51.308(d)(3) and 

(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 § 52.1236 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 

14. Section 52.1776 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1776 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 (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 

15. Section 52.1886 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1886 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 (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 

16. 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 (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 

17. Section 52.2132 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

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, and 

51.308(d)(3) and (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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
82234 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

18. 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 (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 § 52.2240 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 

19. 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, and 51.308(d)(3) and 

(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 

20. Section 52.2452 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding new 

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

§ 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, and 

51.308(d)(3) and (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 

21. Section 52.2533 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

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, and 

51.308(d)(3) and (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 § 52.2540 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. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33586 Filed 12–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560—50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0943; FRL–9614–6] 

RIN 2060–AQ55 

Amendments to Delegation of 

Authority Provisions in the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking action to 

propose amendments to the New Source 

Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program that would 

correct certain outdated language that 

currently limits EPA’s ability to delegate 

the Federal PSD program to interested 

Indian tribes. This action proposes 

changes that would provide consistency 

with the current Federal PSD regulatory 

requirements by allowing the EPA to 

delegate the PSD program to interested 

tribes for their attainment areas. The 

regulations already authorize 

administrative delegation, and EPA has 

in the past delegated administration of 

the PSD program to states and local 

governments for their attainment areas. 

The EPA is proposing to delete a 

restriction on tribes’ ability to take 

delegation of the PSD program and to 

include tribes, along with state and 

locals, in another section to make it 

clear that tribes may voluntarily take 

direct delegation of the NSR program in 

areas that are currently attaining the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The rule would not impose 

any new requirements. The EPA is also 

proposing to correct a minor 

typographical error. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 28, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0943, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0943 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: Send comments to (202) 566– 

9744, attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0943. 

• Mail: Amendments to Delegation of 

Authority Provisions in the PSD 

program Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0943. 

• Hand Delivery: The EPA Docket 

Center, Public Reading Room, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0943. 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–2010– 

0943. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://www.

regulations.gov or email. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS