Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11937 

2011 to September 16, 2011. Wisconsin 

has committed to continue to consult 

with the FLMs as it develops future SIP 

revisions and progress reports. 

H. Comments 

Wisconsin offered the public an 

opportunity to comment on its proposed 

regional haze plan. The public comment 

period for the Wisconsin regional haze 

plan was from August 11, 2011, to 

September 16, 2011. Wisconsin held a 

public meeting on September 13, 2011. 

It also had a public comment period 

from June 28, 2010, to July 29, 2010, 

specifically on the proposed BART for 

Georgia Pacific. A July 29, 2010, public 

hearing concluded the comment period. 

Evidence of the public notices and the 

public hearings were submitted to EPA 

with the regional haze plan. 

Wisconsin summarized the comments 

in its plan and provided its responses to 

the comments. Wisconsin revised its 

proposed BART plan for Georgia Pacific 

following the 2010 and 2011 comment 

periods. Wisconsin has met the 

requirements from 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V to provide evidence that it 

gave public notice, took comment, and 

that it compiled and responded to 

comments. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s SIP addressing regional 

haze for the first implementation period, 

provided Wisconsin adopts and submits 

a clearly enforceable administrative 

order that establishes limits 

representing BART for Georgia Pacific 

consistent with the limits in its draft 

administrative order. Full approval of 

Wisconsin’s use of CSAPR to satisfy the 

BART requirement for the EGUs at nine 

facilities is contingent on EPA’s 

finalization of the rule, proposed on 

December 30, 2011, finding CSAPR as 

an approvable alternative to BART. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4688 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0782–201149, FRL– 

9638–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Alabama; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of a revision to the Alabama 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Alabama 

through the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM), 

on July 15, 2008, that addresses regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

This revision addresses the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

towards the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of this SIP revision to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Alabama on the basis 

that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Alabama SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

rescind the federal regulations 

previously approved into the Alabama 

SIP on November 24, 1987, and to rely 

on the provisions in Alabama’s July 15, 

2008, SIP submittal to meet the longterm strategy (LTS) requirements for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (RAVI). EPA has previously 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

Alabama regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). Consequently, EPA is not 

proposing to take action in this 

rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Alabama Regional Haze 

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

action. 

2Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even 

of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 

from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 

Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

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

Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

OAR–2009–0782, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0782, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2009– 

0782.’’ 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Waterson or Michele Notarianni, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Sara 

Waterson can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9061 and by 

electronic mail at 

waterson.sara@epa.gov. Michele 

Notarianni can be reached at telephone 

number (404) 562–9031 and by 

electronic mail at 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI 

LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Area 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Alabama and Surrounding 

Areas 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in 

the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

6. BART 

7. RPGs 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of Alabama’s July 15, 2008, SIP revision 

addressing regional haze under CAA 

sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) because 

the revision as a whole strengthens the 

Alabama SIP. This proposed rulemaking 

and the accompanying Technical 

Support Document 1 (TSD) explain the 

basis for EPA’s proposed limited 

approval action.2

In a separate action, EPA has 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

Alabama regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11939 

3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

4Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas 

consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, 

wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 

designate as Class I additional areas which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

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

Class I area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, it means a 

‘‘mandatory Class I federal area.’’ 

5Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

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

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

SIP submittal arising from the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 

82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA is not 

proposing to take action in today’s 

rulemaking on issues associated with 

Alabama’s reliance on CAIR in its 

regional haze SIP. Comments on EPA’s 

proposed limited disapproval of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP are 

accepted at the docket for EPA’s 

December 30, 2011 (see Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729). The 

comment period for EPA’s December 30, 

2011, rulemaking is scheduled to end on 

February 28, 2012. 

In this action, EPA is also proposing 

to rescind the federal regulations in 40 

CFR 52.61 that were approved into the 

Alabama SIP. See 52 FR 45138 

(November 24, 1987). EPA is proposing 

to rely on the provisions in Alabama’s 

July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to meet the 

monitoring and LTS requirements for 

RAVI at 40 CFR 51.305 and 40 CFR 

51.306. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

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

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 3 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 

(July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 4

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of 

sources, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment’’. See 45 FR 

80084. These regulations represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into 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 EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.5 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various Federal agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility 

and other air quality issues in the 

southeastern United States. Member 

state and tribal governments include: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the 

Cherokee Indians. 

III. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The deciview is a more useful measure 

for tracking progress in improving 

visibility than light extinction itself 

because each deciview change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.6

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

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

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural, and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http:// 

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

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004 located at http:// 

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

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

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

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

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

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

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

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 

Regional Haze Program (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

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

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

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

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11941 

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

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

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emissions sources that may 

be affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

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

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 7 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts, a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emissions sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

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

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

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

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emissions limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

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

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for 

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

EPA’s regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR cap-and trade 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 

need not require affected BART-eligible 

electrical generating units (EGUs) to 

install, operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not 

address direct emissions of PM, states 

were still required to conduct a BART 

analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 

subject to BART for that pollutant. 

Challenges to CAIR resulted in the 

remand of the rule to EPA. See North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 

2008). 

EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to 

address the interstate transport of NOX

and SO2 in the eastern United States. 

See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the 

Transport Rule,’’ also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies. See 76 FR 82219. Based on this 

proposed finding, EPA also proposed to 

revise the RHR to allow states to 

substitute participation in the trading 

programs under the Transport Rule for 

source-specific BART. EPA has not yet 

taken final action on that rule. Also on 

December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the DC Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolutions of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer CAIR in the interim until the 

court rules on the petitions for review 

of the Transport Rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

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

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

RAVI LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

areas within the state. The strategy must 

be coordinated with the monitoring 

strategy required in section 51.305 for 

RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s regional haze submittal? 

On July 15, 2008, ADEM submitted 

revisions to the Alabama SIP to address 

regional haze in the State’s Class I area 

as required by EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Area 

Alabama has one Class I area within 

its borders: Sipsey Wilderness Area. 

Alabama is responsible for developing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11943 

8The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of federal and State implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emissions sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

9The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in numerous published 

papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, 

Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 

Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients—Final 

Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative 

Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/publications/GrayLit/ 

016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; 

and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: 

Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 

Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final 

Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to 

the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. 

September 2006. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

its a regional haze SIP that addresses the 

Class I area. The State determined RPGs, 

including consulting with other states 

that impact the Class I area, as discussed 

in IV.F.1. In addition, Alabama is 

responsible for describing its long-term 

emission strategies, its role in the 

consultation processes, and how its 

particular state SIP meets the other 

requirements in EPA’s regional haze 

regulations. 

The Alabama regional haze SIP 

establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at this Class I area and a 

LTS to achieve those RPGs within the 

first regional haze implementation 

period ending in 2018. In developing 

the LTS, Alabama considered both 

emissions sources inside and outside of 

Alabama that may cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Alabama’s 

Class I area. The State also identified 

and considered emissions sources 

within Alabama that may cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas in neighboring states as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The 

VISTAS RPO worked with the State in 

developing the technical analyses used 

to make these determinations, including 

state-by-state contributions to visibility 

impairment in specific Class I areas, 

which included the one Class I area in 

Alabama and those areas affected by 

emissions from Alabama. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, Alabama calculated 

baseline/current and natural visibility 

conditions for its Class I area, as 

summarized below (and as further 

described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 

of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register 

action). 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to the 2003 EPA guidance to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 2005.8

The purpose of this refinement to the 

‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide 

more accurate estimates of the various 

factors that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. Alabama opted to use the 

default estimates for the natural 

concentrations, combined with the 

‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for its area. 

Using this approach, natural visibility 

conditions using the new IMPROVE 

equation were calculated separately for 

each Class I area by VISTAS. 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 9 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate, 

nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 

adjusts the mass multiplier for organic 

carbon (particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

ADEM estimated baseline visibility 

conditions at the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area using available monitoring data 

from a single IMPROVE monitoring site. 

As explained in section III.B, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions for the first regional 

haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 

to 2004 monitoring data was calculated 

for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 

percent best visibility days at the 

Alabama Class I area. IMPROVE data 

records for the Sipsey Wilderness Area 

for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the 

EPA requirements for data 

completeness. See page 2–8 of EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. Table 

3.3–1 from Appendix G of the Alabama 

regional haze SIP, also provided in 

section III.B.3 of EPA’s TSD to this 

action, lists the 20 percent best and 

worst days for the baseline period of 

2000–2004 for the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area. These data are also provided at 

the following Web site: http:// 

www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/ 

SesarmBext_20BW.htm. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the Alabama Class I area, baseline 

visibility on the 20 percent worst days 

is approximately 29 deciviews. Natural 

visibility in this area is predicted to be 

approximately 11 deciviews on the 20 

percent worst days. The natural and 

baseline conditions for Alabama’s Class 

I area for both the 20 percent worst and 

best days are presented in Table 1 

below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10The term, ‘‘dv,’’ is the abbreviation for 

‘‘deciview.’’ 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR ALABAMA’S CLASS I AREA

Class I area Average for 20% 

worst days (dv 10) 

Average for 20% 

best days (dv) 

Natural Background Conditions: 

Sipsey Wilderness Area ....................................................................................................................... 10.90 5.03 

Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004) 

Sipsey Wilderness Area ....................................................................................................................... 29.03 15.57 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, Alabama 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and 

the emission reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glidepath. 

The State’s implementation plan 

presents two sets of graphs, one for the 

20 percent best days and one for the 20 

percent worst days, for its Class I area. 

Alabama constructed the graph for the 

worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance by plotting a straight 

graphical line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to 

the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for its area. For the 

best days, the graph includes a 

horizontal, straight line spanning from 

baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 

to depict no degradation in visibility 

over the implementation period of the 

SIP. Alabama’s SIP shows that the 

State’s RPGs for its area provide for 

improvement in visibility for the 20 

percent worst days over the period of 

the implementation plan and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the 20 

percent best days over the same period, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

For the Sipsey Wilderness Area, the 

overall visibility improvement 

necessary to reach natural conditions is 

the difference between baseline 

visibility of 29.03 deciviews for the 20 

percent worst days and natural 

conditions of 10.90 deciviews, i.e., 

18.13 deciviews. Over the 60-year 

period from 2004 to 2064, this would 

require an approximate average 

improvement of 0.302 deciview per year 

(i.e., 18.13 deciviews/60 years) to reach 

natural conditions. Hence, for the 14- 

year period from 2004 to 2018, in order 

to achieve visibility improvements at 

least equivalent to the uniform rate of 

progress for the 20 percent worst days 

at the Sipsey Wilderness Area, Alabama 

would need to project at least 4.23 

deciviews over the first implementation 

period (i.e., 0.302 deciviews × 14 years 

= 4.23 deciviews) of visibility 

improvement from the 29.03 deciviews 

baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility 

levels at or below 24.80 deciviews in 

2018. As discussed below in section 

IV.C.7, Alabama projects a 5.50 

deciview improvement to visibility from 

the 29.03 deciview baseline to 23.53 

deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent 

most impaired days, and a 1.35 

deciview improvement to 14.22 

deciviews from the baseline visibility of 

15.57 deciviews for the 20 percent least 

impaired days. 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in section III.E of this 

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

the state for achieving its RPGs. 

Alabama’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from federal, state, 

and local controls that take effect in the 

State from the end of the baseline period 

starting in 2004 until 2018. The 

Alabama LTS was developed by the 

State, in coordination with the VISTAS 

RPO, through an evaluation of the 

following components: (1) Identification 

of the emissions units within Alabama 

and in surrounding states that likely 

have the largest impacts currently on 

visibility at the State’s Class I area; (2) 

estimation of emissions reductions for 

2018 based on all controls required or 

expected under federal and state 

regulations for the 2004–2018 period 

(including BART); (3) comparison of 

projected visibility improvement with 

the uniform rate of progress for the 

State’s Class I area; and (4) application 

of the four statutory factors in the 

reasonable progress analysis for the 

identified emissions units to determine 

if additional reasonable controls were 

required. 

In a separate notice proposing limited 

disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 

a number of states, EPA noted that these 

states relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a LTS sufficient 

to achieve the state-adopted reasonable 

progress goals. See 76 FR 82219 

(December 30, 2011). In that action, EPA 

proposed a limited disapproval of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP submittal 

insofar as the SIP relied on CAIR. For 

that reason, EPA is not taking action on 

that aspect of Alabama’s regional haze 

SIP in this action. Comments on the 

December 30, 2011, proposed 

determination are accepted at Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729. The 

comment period for EPA’s December 30, 

2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled 

to end on February 28, 2012. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from Alabama. The 2018 emissions 

inventory was developed by projecting 

2002 emissions and applying reductions 

expected from Federal and state 

regulations affecting the emissions of 

VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their 

Class I area(s). As discussed further in 

section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses, which 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC and applicable Federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into 

Alabama’s regional haze analyses, 

Alabama did not further evaluate NH3

and VOC emissions sources for potential 

controls under BART or reasonable 

progress. 

VISTAS developed emissions for five 

inventory source classifications: 

stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. Stationary point 

sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11945 

11See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 

2007). 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. VISTAS estimated 

emissions on a countywide level for the 

inventory categories of: (a) Stationary 

area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 

mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can 

move but does not use the roadways); 

and (c) biogenic sources (which are 

natural sources of emissions, such as 

trees). On-road mobile source emissions 

are estimated by vehicle type and road 

type, and are summed to the 

countywide level. 

There are many federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that VISTAS and Alabama anticipate 

will reduce emissions between the end 

of the baseline period and 2018. 

Emissions reductions from these control 

programs are projected to achieve 

substantial visibility improvement by 

2018 in the Sipsey Wilderness Area. 

The control programs relied upon by 

Alabama include CAIR; EPA’s NOX SIP 

Call; North Carolina’s Clean 

Smokestacks Act; consent decrees for 

Tampa Electric, Virginia Electric and 

Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant 

Crist, Santee Cooper, East Kentucky 

Power Cooperative, and Alabama Power 

Company-Plant Miller; a consent decree 

for Cargill, Inc.; NOX and/or VOC 

reductions from the control rules in 

1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, 

Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; 

federal 2007 heavy duty diesel engine 

standards for on-road trucks and buses; 

federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for onroad vehicles; federal large spark 

ignition and recreational vehicle 

controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel 

rules. Controls from various federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules were also 

utilized in the development of the 2018 

emission inventory projections. These 

MACT rules include the industrial 

boiler/process heater MACT (referred to 

as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the 

combustion turbine and reciprocating 

internal combustion engines MACTs, 

and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year 

MACT standards. 

Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. 

Circuit mandated the vacatur and 

remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT 

Rule.11 This MACT was vacated since it 

was directly affected by the vacatur and 

remand of the Commercial and 

Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

Definition Rule. EPA proposed a new 

Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address 

the vacatur on June 4, 2010, (75 FR 

32006) and issued a final rule on March 

21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The VISTAS 

modeling included emissions 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule, and Alabama did not 

redo its modeling analysis when the 

rule was re-issued. Even though the 

State’s modeling is based on the vacated 

Industrial Boiler MACT limits, 

Alabama’s modeling conclusions are 

unlikely to be affected because the 

expected reductions due to the vacated 

rule were relatively small compared to 

the State’s total SO2, PM2.5, and coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) emissions in 

2018 (i.e., 0.2 to 0.5 percent, depending 

on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 

SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 inventory). Thus, 

EPA does not expect that differences 

between the vacated and final Industrial 

Boiler MACT emission limits would 

affect the adequacy of the existing 

Alabama regional haze SIP. If there is a 

need to address discrepancies between 

projected emissions reductions from the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

Industrial Boiler MACT issued on 

March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA 

expects Alabama to do so in the State’s 

five-year progress report. 

Tables 2 and 3, below, summarize the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emissions inventories for Alabama. 

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR ALABAMA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ............................................................................................. 49,332 244,348 23,291 32,886 2,200 544,309 

Area .............................................................................................. 207,952 34,172 98,671 440,663 60,007 54,462 

On-Road Mobile ........................................................................... 127,295 158,212 2,799 3,903 5,588 6,900 

Off-Road Mobile ........................................................................... 60,487 65,366 4,526 4,949 33 7,584 

Total ...................................................................................... 445,065 502,098 129,287 482,401 67,828 613,255 

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR ALABAMA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ............................................................................................. 57,243 142,676 27,366 37,746 3,536 249,075 

Area .............................................................................................. 181,116 36,945 108,892 497,924 73,969 52,950 

On-Road Mobile ........................................................................... 49,175 47,298 1,192 2,410 7,298 720 

Off-road Mobile ............................................................................ 40,407 43,799 2,874 3,300 42 2,818 

Total ...................................................................................... 327,941 270,718 140,324 541,380 84,845 305,563 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

VISTAS performed modeling for the 

regional haze LTS for the 10 

southeastern states, including Alabama. 

The modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. 

VISTAS used the following modeling 

system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a 

nonhydrostatic, prognostic, 

meteorological model routinely used for 

urban- and regional-scale 

photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze 

regulatory modeling studies. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emission inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire, and biogenic emissions sources for 

photochemical grid models. Air Quality 

Model: The EPA’s Models-3/Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

modeling system is a photochemical 

grid model capable of addressing ozone, 

PM, visibility, and acid deposition at a 

regional scale. The photochemical 

model selected for this study was 

CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified 

through VISTAS with a module for 

Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open 

and transparent manner that was also 

subjected to outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12 × 12 

kilometer cells that covers the 10 

VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia, West Virginia) and states 

adjacent to them. This grid is nested 

within a larger national CMAQ 

modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells 

that covers the continental United 

States, portions of Canada and Mexico, 

and portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

Selection of a representative period of 

meteorology is crucial for evaluating 

baseline air quality conditions and 

projecting future changes in air quality 

due to changes in emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants. VISTAS 

conducted an in-depth analysis which 

resulted in the selection of the entire 

year of 2002 (January 1–December 31) as 

the best period of meteorology available 

for conducting the CMAQ modeling. 

The VISTAS states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

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

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002), 

April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ 

eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

VISTAS examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

VISTAS used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), Alabama provided EPA 

with the appropriate supporting 

documentation for all required analyses 

used to determine the State’s LTS. The 

technical analyses and modeling used to 

develop the glidepath and to support 

the LTS are consistent with EPA’s RHR 

and interim and final EPA Modeling 

Guidance. EPA proposes to accept the 

VISTAS technical modeling to support 

the LTS and determine visibility 

improvement for the uniform rate of 

progress because the modeling system 

was chosen and simulated according to 

EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes 

to agree with the VISTAS model 

performance procedures and results, 

and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 

tool for the regional haze assessments 

for the Alabama LTS and regional haze 

SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, source sectors, and 

geographic areas, VISTAS developed 

emission sensitivity model runs using 

CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air 

quality impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution 

assessment, based on IMPROVE 

monitoring data, demonstrated that 

ammonium sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, ammonium sulfate 

accounted for 75 to 87 percent of the 

calculated light extinction at the inland 

Class I areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 

percent of the calculated light extinction 

for all but one of the coastal Class I areas 

in the VISTAS states. In particular, 

sulfate particles resulting from SO2

emissions contribute roughly 75 percent 

to the calculated light extinction on the 

haziest days for the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area. In contrast, ammonium nitrate 

contributed less than five percent of the 

calculated light extinction at VISTAS 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. Particulate organic 

matter (organic carbon) accounted for 20 

percent or less of the light extinction on 

the 20 percent worst visibility days at 

the VISTAS Class I areas. 

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas 

into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or 

‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ 

similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 

geography, meteorology), to better 

represent variations in model sensitivity 

and performance within the VISTAS 

region, and to describe the common 

factors influencing visibility conditions 

in the two types of Class I areas. 

Alabama’s Class I area is an ‘‘inland’’ 

area. 

Results from VISTAS’ emissions 

sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at all Class I areas in 

VISTAS. Alabama concluded that 

reducing SO2 emissions from EGU and 

non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS 

states would have the greatest visibility 

benefits for the Sipsey Wilderness Area. 

Because ammonium nitrate is a small 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment on the 20 percent worst 

days at the inland Class I areas in 

VISTAS, which include the Sipsey 

Wilderness Area, the benefits of 

reducing NOX and NH3 emissions at 

these sites is small. 

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses 

show that VOC emissions from biogenic 

sources such as vegetation also 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

However, control of these biogenic 

sources of VOC would be extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. The 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions are minor compared to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11947 

12Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related 

values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains’’. 

States cooperated with FLMs, EPA, industry, 

environmental organizations, and academia to 

complete a technical assessment of the impacts of 

acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on 

sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. 

The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 

2002. 

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions would have little if any 

visibility benefits at the Class I areas in 

the VISTAS region, including the Sipsey 

Wilderness Area. The sensitivity 

analyses also show that reducing 

primary carbon from point sources, 

ground level sources, or fires is 

projected to have small to no visibility 

benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas. 

Alabama considered the factors listed 

in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section 

III.E of this action to develop its LTS as 

described below. Alabama, in 

conjunction with VISTAS, 

demonstrated in its SIP that elemental 

carbon (a product of highway and nonroad diesel engines, agricultural 

burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), 

fine soils (a product of construction 

activities and activities that generate 

fugitive dust), and ammonia are 

relatively minor contributors to 

visibility impairment at the Class I area 

in Alabama. The State considered 

agricultural and forestry smoke 

management techniques to address 

visibility impacts from elemental 

carbon. ADEM has an approved smoke 

management program that addresses the 

issues laid out in EPA’s 1998 Interim 

Air Quality Policy on Wildland and 

Prescribed Fires available at: http:// 

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

firefnl.pdf. With regard to fine soils, the 

State considered those activities that 

generate fugitive dust, including 

construction activities. Fine soil 

particles are minor contributors to 

visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness Area. 

With regard to construction activities, 

ADEM has issued regulations (ADEM 

Admin. Code 335–3–4-.02) to control 

fugitive dust from construction 

activities and to control particulates 

from fugitive dust emissions sources 

generated within plant boundaries. The 

State has chosen not to develop controls 

for fine soils in this first implementation 

period because of their relatively minor 

contribution to visibility impairment. 

With regard to ammonia emissions from 

agricultural sources, ADEM notes in its 

SIP that the State currently has no 

regulations and there are currently no 

Federal regulations related to the 

control of ammonia from animal feeding 

operations. Once EPA has proposed 

regulations for these sources, ADEM 

will commit to evaluating potential 

controls on applicable sources in 

Alabama. 

EPA preliminary concurs with the 

State’s technical demonstration showing 

that elemental carbon, fine soils, and 

ammonia are not significant 

contributors to visibility in the State’s 

Class I area, and therefore, proposes to 

find that Alabama has adequately 

satisfied 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA’s 

TSD to this Federal Register action and 

Alabama’s SIP provide more details on 

the State’s consideration of these factors 

for Alabama’s LTS. 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by VISTAS predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific 

to Alabama, the VISTAS sensitivity 

analysis projects that visibility benefits 

in the Sipsey Wilderness Area from SO2

reductions from Alabama’s EGUs would 

have the greatest visibility benefits in 

the Sipsey Wilderness Area. 

Contributions from other VISTAS states, 

other RPOs, and from the boundary 

conditions are smaller but not 

insignificant. Smaller benefits are 

projected from additional SO2 emission 

reductions from non-utility industrial 

point sources. Thus, controlling sources 

outside of the VISTAS region is 

predicted to provide less significant 

improvements in visibility in the Sipsey 

Wilderness area. 

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity 

analyses results into consideration, 

Alabama concluded that reducing SO2

emissions from EGU and non-EGU point 

sources in the VISTAS states would 

have the greatest visibility benefits for 

the Sipsey Wilderness Area. The State 

chose to focus solely on evaluating 

certain SO2 sources contributing to 

visibility impairment to the State’s Class 

I area for additional emissions 

reductions for reasonable progress in 

this first implementation period 

(described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 

of this action). EPA proposes to agree 

with the State’s analyses and 

conclusions used to determine the 

pollutants and source categories that 

most contribute to visibility impairment 

in the Alabama Class I area, and 

proposes to find that the State’s 

approach to focus on developing a LTS 

that includes largely additional 

measures for point sources of SO2

emissions is appropriate. 

SO2 sources for which it is 

demonstrated that no additional 

controls are reasonable in this current 

implementation period will not be 

exempted from future assessments for 

controls in subsequent implementation 

periods or, when appropriate, from the 

five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future 

implementation periods, additional 

controls on these SO2 sources evaluated 

in the first implementation period may 

be determined to be reasonable, based 

on a reasonable progress control 

evaluation, for continued progress 

toward natural conditions for the 20 

percent worst days and to avoid further 

degradation of the 20 percent best days. 

Similarly, in subsequent 

implementation periods, the State may 

use different criteria for identifying 

sources for evaluation and may consider 

other pollutants as visibility conditions 

change over time. 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Alabama and Surrounding 

Areas 

As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this 

action, through comprehensive 

evaluations by VISTAS and the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains 

Initiative (SAMI),12 the VISTAS states 

concluded that sulfate particles 

resulting from SO2 emissions account 

for the greatest portion of the regional 

haze affecting the Class I areas in 

VISTAS states, including the Sipsey 

Wilderness Area in Alabama. Utility 

and non-utility boilers are the main 

sources of SO2 emissions within the 

southeastern United States. VISTAS 

developed a methodology for Alabama 

which enables the State to focus its 

reasonable progress analysis on those 

geographic regions and source 

categories that impact visibility at its 

Class I area. Recognizing that there was 

neither sufficient time nor adequate 

resources available to evaluate all 

emissions units within a given area of 

influence (AOI) around each Class I area 

that Alabama’s sources impact, the State 

established a threshold to determine 

which emissions units would be 

evaluated for reasonable progress 

control. In applying this methodology, 

ADEM first calculated the fractional 

contribution to visibility impairment 

from all emissions units within the SO2

AOI for the Sipsey Wilderness Area and 

those surrounding areas in other states 

potentially impacted by emissions from 

emissions units in Alabama. The State 

then identified those emissions units 

with a contribution of one percent or 

more to the visibility impairment at that 

particular Class I area, and evaluated 

each of these units for control measures 

for reasonable progress using the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13See also EPA’s TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 

contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, 

excerpted from the Alabama SIP, Appendix H. 

following four ‘‘reasonable progress 

factors’’ as required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of 

compliance; (ii) time necessary for 

compliance; (iii) energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (iv) remaining useful 

life of the emissions unit. 

Alabama’s SO2 AOI methodology 

captured 55 percent of the total point 

source SO2 contribution to visibility 

impairment in the Class I area in 

Alabama and 61 to 73 percent of the 

total contribution at the Class I areas in 

neighboring states, and required an 

evaluation of 29 sources. Capturing a 

significantly greater percentage of the 

total contribution would involve an 

evaluation of many more emissions 

units that have substantially less 

impact. EPA believes the approach 

developed by VISTAS and implemented 

for the Class I area in Alabama is a 

reasonable methodology to prioritize the 

most significant contributors to regional 

haze and to identify sources to assess for 

reasonable progress control in the 

State’s Class I area. EPA proposes to 

find that the approach is consistent with 

the Agency’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance. The technical approach of 

VISTAS and Alabama was objective and 

based on several analyses, which 

included a large universe of emissions 

units within and surrounding the State 

of Alabama and all of the 18 VISTAS 

Class I areas. It also included an 

analysis of the VISTAS emissions units 

affecting nearby Class I areas 

surrounding the VISTAS states that are 

located in other RPOs’ Class I areas. 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors 

in the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

ADEM identified 29 emissions units 

at 12 facilities in Alabama (see Table 4) 

with SO2 emissions that were above the 

State’s minimum threshold for 

reasonable progress evaluation because 

they were modeled to fall within the 

sulfate AOI of any Class I area and have 

a one percent or greater contribution to 

the sulfate visibility impairment to at 

least one Class I area.13 Of these 29 

units, 19 emissions units were already 

subject to CAIR, five units were subject 

to BART, and one facility provided 

additional information documenting 

that they had been improperly 

identified as meeting the State’s 

minimum threshold for reasonable 

progress evaluation. Using the expected 

costs of controls for EGUs complying 

with CAIR as an indicator of what might 

be reasonable for non-EGU sources, 

ADEM established a threshold of $2,000 

per ton of SO2 for controls. As explained 

in section IV.C.5, 19 of these 29 

emissions units were already subject to 

CAIR or were determined to not have a 

reasonable expectation of having control 

costs less than $2,000 per ton. Of the 

four emissions units, three initially 

listed as having potential impacts on 

Class I areas in other states were not 

identified by these states as impacting 

their Class I areas. 

TABLE 4—ALABAMA FACILITIES SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Facility With a Unit Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis: 

Cargill, Inc. Unit S–407 

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area: 

Alabama Power Co—Barry Units 002, 003, 004, 005, 006 

Alabama Power Co—Gorgas Units 004, 005, 008 

Alabama Power Co—Gaston Unit 006 

Alabama Power Co—Miller Units 001, 002, 004, 005 

TVA—Colbert Unit 014 

TVA—Widows Creek, Units 002, 004, 005, 008, 009 

Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to a Reasonable Progress Analysis: 

Non-EGUs Subject to BART 

Solutia, Inc. Units 009, 013, 014, 015 

International Paper Co. Unit 006 

Not Subject to Evaluation Based on Updated Information 

Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc., Unit 003 

Analysis Not Required By Impacted State 

Escambia Operating Co (Exxon Mobile Co.) Unit 014 

Sanders Lead Co. Units 003, 008 

A. Facility With an Emissions Unit 

Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis 

ADEM analyzed whether SO2 controls 

should be required for the Cargill, Inc., 

stoker boiler (S–407) based on a 

consideration of the four factors set out 

in the CAA and EPA’s regulations. For 

the limited purpose of evaluating the 

cost of compliance for the reasonable 

progress assessment in this first regional 

haze SIP for the non-EGUs, ADEM 

concluded that it was not equitable to 

require non-EGUs to bear a greater 

economic burden than EGUs for a given 

control strategy. Using CAIR as a guide, 

ADEM used a cost of $2,000 per ton of 

SO2 controlled or reduced as a threshold 

for cost effectiveness. 

Cargill’s S–407 unit is permitted to 

burn coal, natural gas, or No. 2 fuel oil. 

Coal with a sulfur content of 1.2 to 1.3 

pounds/million British Thermal units 

(lb/MMBtu) is the primary fuel source. 

S–407 emits about 780 tons per year of 

SO2. Cargill evaluated three control 

options: lower sulfur content coal, wet 

scrubbers, and dry scrubbers. Lower 

sulfur content coal could not be used 

because of its lack of availability. Also, 

even if lower sulfur western coal were 

available, significant boiler modification 

would be necessary to burn it and the 

coal would challenge the boiler’s 

combustion integrity due to its higher 

dust content. Therefore, lower sulfur 

coal was determined to be technically 

infeasible. As for the add-on controls 

(wet and dry scrubbers), Cargill 

estimated that it would cost $2,946/ton 

to control SO2 with these technologies. 

Although no modeling was submitted, 

Cargill also questioned whether S–407 

contributed to visibility impairment at 

the Sipsey Wilderness Area. Cargill 

submitted a wind rose with five years of 

data from the nearby Huntsville, 

Alabama, airport that indicates that 

winds coming from the northeast blow 

from the facility toward the Sipsey 

Wilderness Area only three percent of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11949 

14EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 

4.2–4–3. 

the time. Based on Cargill’s submittal, 

ADEM determined that none of the 

evaluated controls are cost effective for 

this unit. 

As noted in EPA’s Reasonable 

Progress Guidance, the states have wide 

latitude to determine appropriate 

additional control requirements for 

ensuring reasonable progress and there 

are many ways for a state to approach 

identification of additional reasonable 

measures. In determining reasonable 

progress, states must consider, at a 

minimum, the four statutory factors, but 

states have flexibility in how to take 

these factors into consideration. 

Alabama applied the methodology 

developed by VISTAS for identifying 

appropriate sources to be considered for 

additional controls under reasonable 

progress for the implementation period 

addressed by this SIP, which ends in 

2018. Using this methodology, ADEM 

first identified those emissions and 

emissions units most likely to have an 

impact on visibility in the State’s Class 

I area. Units with emissions of SO2 with 

a relative contribution of at least a one 

percent to the visibility impairment at 

any Class I area were then subject to a 

reasonable progress control analysis. As 

noted above, of the emissions units in 

Alabama, one emissions unit at Cargill 

was subject to this analysis. ADEM 

concluded, based on their evaluation of 

the Cargill analyses, that no further 

controls were warranted at this time. 

After reviewing ADEM’s methodology 

and analyses presented in the SIP 

materials prepared by ADEM, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alabama’s 

conclusion that no further controls are 

necessary at this time for S–407. EPA 

proposes to agree with the State’s 

approach of identifying the key 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment at its Class I area, and 

considers ADEM’s methodology to 

identify sources of SO2 most likely to 

have an impact on visibility on any 

Class I area to be an appropriate 

methodology for narrowing the scope of 

the State’s analysis. In general, EPA also 

proposes to find Alabama’s evaluation 

of the four statutory factors for 

reasonable progress to be reasonable. In 

addition, EPA proposes to find that 

ADEM fully evaluated all control 

technologies available at the time of its 

analysis and applicable to the one 

emissions unit at the Cargill facility. 

Although the use of a specific threshold 

for assessing costs means that Alabama 

may not have fully considered other 

available emissions reduction measures 

above its threshold, EPA believes that 

the Alabama SIP still ensures reasonable 

progress. In considering Alabama’s 

approach, EPA is also proposing to 

place great weight on the fact that there 

is no indication in the SIP submittal that 

Alabama, as a result of using a specific 

cost effectiveness threshold, rejected 

potential reasonable progress measures 

that would have had a meaningful 

impact on visibility in its Class I area. 

EPA notes that given the emissions 

reductions resulting from CAIR, 

Alabama’s BART determinations, and 

the measures in nearby states, the 

visibility improvements projected for 

the affected Class I area are in excess of 

that needed to be on the uniform rate of 

progress. 

B. Emissions Units Subject to CAIR 

Within AOI of Any Class I Area 

Nineteen emissions units identified 

for a reasonable progress control 

analysis are EGUs and are subject to 

CAIR. These EGUs, located at six 

facilities, are: Alabama Power Co—Barry 

Units 002, 003, 004, 005, 006; Alabama 

Power Co—Gorgas Units 004, 005, 008; 

Alabama Power Co—Gaston Unit 006; 

Alabama Power Co—Miller Units 001, 

002, 004, 005; TVA—Colbert Unit 014; 

and TVA—Widows Creek, Units 002, 

004, 005, 008, 009. 

In reaching this decision, ADEM 

considered the four reasonable progress 

factors set forth in EPA’s RHR as they 

apply to the State’s entire EGU sector 

(see section 7.6 of the Alabama SIP and 

section III.C.2 of EPA’s TSD for this 

action). In particular, the State took into 

account the factors of cost and time 

necessary for compliance in view of 

EPA’s analysis supporting CAIR. Based 

on the analysis, ADEM concluded that 

additional SO2 control measures, 

beyond those needed to meet CAIR 

requirements, for Alabama’s EGUs 

would not be reasonable during this first 

implementation period based on a 

consideration of the reasonable progress 

statutory factors. This conclusion is 

bolstered by the fact that visibility 

improvement at the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area is projected to exceed the uniform 

rate of progress in this first 

implementation period. EPA proposes 

to find acceptable Alabama’s 

methodology and determination that no 

additional controls beyond CAIR are 

reasonable for SO2 for affected Alabama 

EGUs for the first implementation 

period. 

C. Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not 

Subject to a Reasonable Progress 

Analysis 

1. Non-EGUs Subject to BART. 

At both the International PaperCourtland Mill and the Solutia, Inc., 

facilities, all five units identified as 

being subject to analysis for reasonable 

progress for the Sipsey Wilderness Area 

are subject to BART and subsequently 

were evaluated for BART controls. 

ADEM believes that BART is equivalent 

to reasonable progress for these five 

units, and thus, is not requiring any 

additional controls for reasonable 

progress. As discussed in EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance, since the 

BART analysis is based, in part, on an 

assessment of many of the same factors 

that must be addressed in establishing 

the RPGs, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude that any control 

requirements imposed in the BART 

determination also satisfy the RPGrelated requirements for source review 

in the first implementation period.14

Thus, EPA proposes to agree with the 

State’s conclusions that BART satisfies 

reasonable progress for the first 

implementation period for these five 

non-EGU emissions units at 

International Paper-Courtland Mill and 

the Solutia facility. 

2. Other Units Found Not Subject to 

a Reasonable Progress Control Analysis. 

Four other emissions units at three 

Alabama facilities were determined to 

not be subject to a reasonable progress 

control analysis (see Table 4). ADEM 

initially identified one emissions unit, a 

sulfuric acid plant at the Akzo Nobel 

facility, which met the State’s minimum 

threshold for reasonable progress 

evaluation. ADEM determined that the 

2018 projected SO2 emissions rate for 

Akzo Nobel’s sulfuric acid plant 

exceeded the allowable emissions rate 

for that unit. When the analysis was 

revised to incorporate the allowable 

emissions rate, the contribution from 

the sulfuric acid unit was below the 

State’s one percent contribution 

threshold for consideration. 

ADEM had initially determined that a 

sulfur recovery unit at Escambia was 

contributing one percent or more to the 

sulfate visibility impairment at the 

Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana. It 

is the responsibility of the state in 

which the Class I area resides to 

determine which sources need to be 

assessed to evaluate for reasonable 

progress for that state’s Class I area. 

Subsequently, the State of Louisiana 

completed its analyses for the Breton 

area and did not identify this unit as 

meeting Louisiana’s minimum threshold 

for evaluation for reasonable progress, 

and did not request a reasonable 

progress analysis for this source. 

Alabama also notes in its SIP that this 

unit at Escambia took a permit limit of 

approximately 7,963 tons of actual SO2

emissions (equivalent to approximately 

a 40 percent reduction in emissions) so 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15Note that EPA’s reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer on the following Web 

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

that it would not be subject to BART. 

The State issued a permit enforcing this 

limit in 2006. 

For the St. Marks Wilderness area in 

Florida, ADEM initially determined that 

two emissions units at the Sanders Lead 

Company met Alabama’s minimum 

threshold for reasonable progress 

evaluation. Subsequently, the State of 

Florida completed its analyses and did 

not identify these units as meeting its 

minimum threshold for evaluation for 

reasonable progress and did not request 

a reasonable progress analysis of these 

units. Based on consultations with the 

States of Florida and Louisiana, 

Alabama conducted no further 

evaluation of the three emissions units 

at Escambia and Sanders Lead. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of Alabama’s LTS 

for the first implementation period. The 

BART evaluation process consists of 

three components: (a) An identification 

of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an 

assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART, 

and (c) a determination of the BART 

controls. These components, as 

addressed by ADEM and ADEM’s 

findings, are discussed as follows. 

A. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the state’s boundaries. 

ADEM identified the BART-eligible 

sources in Alabama by utilizing the 

three eligibility criteria in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s 

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

more emissions units at the facility fit 

within one of the 26 categories listed in 

the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions 

units were not in operation prior to 

August 7, 1962, and were in existence 

on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or 

more per year of any visibility-impairing 

pollutant. 

The BART Guidelines also direct 

states to address SO2, NOX and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairment 

pollutants, and to exercise judgment in 

determining whether VOC or ammonia 

emissions from a source impair 

visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. 

VISTAS modeling demonstrated that 

VOC from anthropogenic sources and 

ammonia from point sources are not 

significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants in Alabama, as discussed in 

section IV.C.3. of this action. Based on 

the VISTAS modeling, analyses of 

spatial and temporal distributions of 

ammonia concentrations indicate that 

the State’s point sources are not 

anticipated to cause or contribute 

significantly to any impairment of 

visibility in Class I areas and should be 

exempt for BART purposes. 

B. BART-Subject Sources 

The second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Alabama required 

each of its BART-eligible sources to 

develop and submit dispersion 

modeling to assess the extent of their 

contribution to visibility impairment at 

surrounding Class I areas. 

1. Modeling Methodology. 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

use the CALPUFF 15 modeling system 

(CALPUFF) or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area, 

and therefore, to determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA 

believes that CALPUFF is the best 

regulatory modeling application 

currently available for predicting a 

single source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment (70 FR 39162). Alabama, in 

coordination with VISTAS, used the 

CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in Alabama were subject to or exempt 

from BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS 

states, including Alabama, developed a 

‘‘Protocol for the Application of 

CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’ 

Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, 

industrial sources, trade groups, and 

other interested parties, actively 

participated in the development and 

review of the VISTAS protocol. 

VISTAS developed a post-processing 

approach to use the new IMPROVE 

equation with the CALPUFF model 

results so that the BART analyses could 

consider both the old and new 

IMPROVE equations. Alabama’s 

justification included a method to 

process the CALPUFF output and a 

rationale on the benefits of using the 

new IMPROVE equation, in Appendix B 

of its July 15, 2008, submittal. 

2. Contribution Threshold. 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes to visibility 

impairment’ may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if they conclude that the location of a 

large number of BART-eligible sources 

in proximity of a Class I area justifies 

this approach. 

Alabama used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciview for 

determining which sources are subject 

to BART and concluded that the 

threshold of 0.5 deciview was 

appropriate in this situation. ADEM 

concluded that, considering the results 

of the visibility impacts modeling 

conducted, a 0.5 deciview threshold 

was appropriate and a lower threshold 

was not warranted since there is a clear 

spatial variability of sources across the 

State. ADEM notes that it does not have 

a technical justification for lowering the 

threshold based on consideration of 

multiple plume interaction. In addition, 

there are a limited number of BARTeligible sources in close proximity to 

Class I areas. The State also believes that 

0.5 deciview is sufficiently stringent 

since it is half of the threshold 

established by EPA for causing visibility 

impairment. As stated in the BART 

Guidelines, where a state concludes that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11951 

a large number of these BART-eligible 

sources within proximity of a Class I 

area justify a lower threshold, it may 

warrant establishing a lower 

contribution threshold. See 70 FR 

39161–39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA 

proposes to agree with Alabama that the 

overall impacts of these sources are not 

sufficient to warrant a lower 

contribution threshold and that a 0.5 

deciview threshold was appropriate in 

this instance. 

3. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART. 

Alabama identified 43 facilities with 

BART-eligible sources. All of Alabama’s 

43 BART-eligible sources were required 

by the State to submit BART exemption 

modeling demonstrations. Alabama 

found that three of its BART-eligible 

sources, Solutia-Decatur, International 

Paper-Courtland, and Escambia 

Operating Co-Big Escambia Creek, had 

modeled visibility impacts of more than 

Alabama’s 0.5 deciview threshold for 

BART exemption. Escambia took permit 

limits to no longer be subject to BART. 

Solution-Decatur and International 

Paper-Courtland are considered to be 

subject to BART and submitted State 

permit applications including their 

proposed BART determinations. 

Of the 41 exempted sources, three 

were exempted because they emitted 

only VOC in excess of 250 tons per year, 

three accepted permit limits which 

reduced their potential to emit to below 

250 tons per year of any affected 

pollutant, and one, Escambia, took 

permit limits that reduced its impact to 

below 0.5 deciview. 

The 34 remaining sources are not 

subject to BART as they modeled 

visibility impacts less than a 0.5 

deciview at the affected Class I areas. 

This modeling involved emissions of 

NOX, SO2, and PM10, as applicable to 

individual facilities. Eight of the 34 

sources are power plants (i.e., Alabama 

Electric Coop—Lowman, Alabama 

Power Co—Barry, Alabama Power Co— 

EC Gaston, Alabama Power Co—Gorgas, 

Alabama Power Co—Greene Co, 

Alabama Power Co—Miller, TVA— 

Colbert, and TVA—Widows Creek). 

Only PM10 emissions were used in the 

modeling for EGU sources. The SO2 and 

NOX BART-eligible emissions were not 

modeled, because Alabama opted to 

have CAIR satisfy BART for SO2 and 

NOX for affected CAIR EGUs, as allowed 

under the regional haze regulations. The 

remaining 26 non-EGU sources 

demonstrated that they are not subject 

to BART since they modeled less than 

a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at the 

affected Class I areas. Table 5 identifies 

the 43 BART-eligible sources located in 

Alabama and identifies the two sources 

subject to BART. 

TABLE 5—ALABAMA BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART: 

Solutia—Decatur 

International Paper Co—Courtland 

Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART 

EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources 16

Alabama Electric Coop—Lowman 

Alabama Power Co—Barry 

Alabama Power Co—EC Gaston 

Alabama Power Co—Gorgas 

Alabama Power Co—Greene Co 

Alabama Power Co—Miller 

TVA—Colbert 

TVA—Widows Creek 

Non-EGUs Exempt with Additional Model-Based Emissions Limits 

Escambia Operating Co—Big Escambia Creek 

Non-EGUs Exempt with Potential Emissions Limits below 250 Tons per Year 

Mobile Energy Services 

Rock Tenn (Gulf States Paper) 

Tronox, LLC (Kerr McGee Chemical) 

Non-EGU Exempt for VOC Only Emissions 

3M Company, Decatur Plant 

Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp 

Wise Alloys LLC, Alloys Plant 

Non-EGUs Exempt by BART Modeling 

American Cast Iron Pipe 

Boise White Paper 

Bowater Inc.—Alabama 

BP Amoco Chemicals 

Carmeuse Lime & Stone 

CEMEX, Inc. 

Chemical Lime Co—Alabaster 

Chemical Lime Co—Montevallo 

ConocoPhillips Co—Chatom 

Degussa Corporation 

Ft James-Pennington—Naheola 

Hunt Refining Co—Tuscaloosa 

International Paper Co—Prattville 

International Paper Co—Riverdale 

JSC Brewton (Smurfit Stone) 

Lehigh Cement 

MeadWestvaco—Mahrt Mill 

National Cement Co of Alabama 

Oak Grove Resources 

Sanders Lead Co 

Shell Chemical Co—Saraland 

Sloss Industries 

US Pipe & Co—Bessemer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. 

Alabama relied on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO2

and NOX for its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2 and NOX were not 

analyzed. 

TABLE 5—ALABAMA BART-ELIGIBLE AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES—Continued 

US Steel—Fairfield 

Weyerhaeuser 

Vintage Petroleum, Inc.—Flomaton 

Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for 

NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs 

was fully approvable and in accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, the 

BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for 

NOX and SO2 and other provisions in 

this SIP revision are based on CAIR. In 

a separate action, EPA has proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Alabama 

regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the D.C. Circuit to EPA of CAIR. See 

76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not 

taking action in this proposed 

rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

C. BART Determinations 

Three BART-eligible sources (i.e., 

Solutia-Decatur, International PaperCourtland, and Escambia-Big Escambia 

Creek) had modeled visibility impacts of 

more than Alabama’s 0.5 deciview 

threshold for BART exemption. 

Escambia accepted permit limits to 

reduce its visibility impacts to below 0.5 

deciview. Only Solutia-Decatur and 

International Paper-Courtland are 

therefore considered to be subject to 

BART. Consequently, they each 

submitted permit applications to the 

State that included their proposed 

BART determinations. 

In accordance with the BART 

Guidelines, to determine the level of 

control that represents BART for each 

source, the State first reviewed existing 

controls on these units to assess 

whether these constituted the best 

controls currently available, then 

identified what other technically 

feasible controls are available, and 

finally, evaluated the technically 

feasible controls using the five BART 

statutory factors. The State’s evaluations 

and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, 

are summarized below. 

1. Solutia—Decatur. 

Solutia—Decatur has five BARTeligible emissions units that comprise 

the BART-eligible source. Boiler No. 5 is 

a 290 MMBtu per hour (MMBtu/hr) 

coal-fired spreader-stoker boiler; Boiler 

No. 6 is a 320 MMBtu/hr coal-fired 

spreader-stoker boiler; Boiler No. 7 is a 

536.1 MMBtu/hr pulverized coal-fired 

boiler; and Coking Boilers No. 1 and No. 

2 are each 384 MMBtu/hr coal-fired 

stoker boilers. Each of the boilers is 

equipped with an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) for particulate 

control, and the boilers have SO2

emissions limits to address modeled 

SO2 NAAQS exceedances in the area. In 

addition, Solutia has installed a rotating 

opposed fired air system (ROFA) 

combustion control to reduce NOX

formation on Boiler No. 7. The 

manufacturer has guaranteed a NOX

reduction of 48 percent with the system. 

This unit is subject to New Source 

Performance Standards, Subpart D. As 

required by Subpart D, this boiler has 

limitations for particulate, SO2, and 

NOX emissions. 

ADEM has concluded that no 

additional particulate controls would be 

reasonable for the BART units at 

Solutia. For Boilers No. 5 and 6, stack 

tests have shown an overall PM control 

efficiency for the ESPs to be 98.8 

percent. For Boiler 7, the PM control 

efficiency has been estimated from stack 

tests as 99 percent. Although the coking 

boilers have not been tested, the 

particulate control efficiency from the 

ESPs has been estimated at 96 percent. 

ADEM evaluated the option of adding a 

baghouse to each of the boilers and 

coking units following the existing 

ESPs. The cost effectiveness of this 

control option ranged from $5,462 to 

$79,995 per ton of particulate and the 

visibility improvement for the 98th 

percentile day ranged from 0.19 to 0.52 

deciview. 

ADEM determined that no additional 

controls for Boiler 5, Boiler 6, and the 

coking boilers would be required for the 

control of NOX emissions for BART. 

However, Boiler 7 would be required to 

meet an emission limit of 0.36 lb NOX/ 

MMBtu with the installation of a ROFA 

system or a comparable technology. 

Although the basis for the installation of 

the ROFA system for Boiler No.7 was 

the Boiler MACT, the system has been 

installed and was considered as existing 

equipment for this case-by-case BART 

analysis. Solutia evaluated additional 

control options for NOX. The available 

combustion control options included 

low excess air, burners out of service, 

biased burner firing, overfire air, low 

NOX burners, and reburn. Available 

post-combustion control options 

included selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR). Modeling for all of the 

additional NOX control options 

evaluated indicated relatively small to 

no reduction in visibility impacts. No 

deciview improvements were modeled 

for the 98th percentile day and only 

0.04–0.07 deciview improvement was 

modeled on the maximum high day. 

For the control of SO2, ADEM has 

determined BART for Boilers 5 and 6 to 

be an emissions limit of 1.40 lbs SO2/ 

MMBtu. Boiler 7, the largest of the 

emissions units subject to BART, would 

be required to meet a limitation of 0.47 

lb SO2/MMBtu with the installation of 

a flue solvent injection (FSI) system or 

a comparable technology. ADEM 

concluded that the addition of any 

controls for the coking units would 

negate the viability of the coking units; 

therefore, no additional controls were 

proposed for these units. Solutia 

evaluated the utilization of lower sulfur 

coals, and post-combustion flue gas 

desulfurization (which would include 

sorbent injection or wet scrubbers). The 

use of low sulfur coal (1.4 lbs SO2/ 

MMBtu) in Boilers 5 and 6 would 

provide a reduction of approximately 43 

percent. Currently, Boiler No. 7 is 

already required to utilize low sulfur 

coal. Therefore, the utilization of lower 

sulfur coal would only provide a 

reduction of seven percent. In 

combination with the ROFA system, 

Solutia has a manufacturer guarantee 

that the use of a FSI system would 

reduce SO2 by as much as 60 percent in 

Boiler No. 7. 

EPA proposes to agree with Alabama’s 

analyses and conclusions for the BART 

emissions units located at this Solutia 

facility. EPA has reviewed the ADEM 

analyses and concluded they were 

conducted in a manner that is consistent 

with EPA’s BART Guidelines and EPA’s 

Air Pollution Control Cost Manual 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/ 

products.html#cccinfo). Therefore, the 

conclusions reflect a reasonable 

application of EPA’s guidance to this 

source. 

EPA reviewed the ADEM BART 

determination for Solutia—Decatur and 

proposes to concur with Alabama’s 

analyses and conclusions for BART for 

this facility. EPA believes that the 

analyses were conducted consistent 

with EPA’s BART Guidelines and EPA’s 

Air Pollution Control Cost Manual and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11953 

that they reflect a reasonable application 

of EPA’s guidance to this source. 

2. International Paper—Courtland 

Mill. 

International Paper’s Courtland Mill 

has seven BART-eligible emissions units 

that comprise the BART-eligible source. 

No. 1 Combination Boiler is a 398 

MMBtu/hr combination fuel boiler that 

fires bark, natural gas, and fuel oil and 

is operated as a swing boiler. The boiler 

vents to a venturi scrubber where the 

gases are scrubbed with water to remove 

PM. No. 2 Combination Boiler is a 679 

MMBtu/hr combination fuel boiler that 

fires coal, bark, and natural gas. The 

primary fuel for this boiler is bark. The 

other primary fuel for this boiler is coal. 

The No. 2 Combination Boiler is vented 

to two ESPs to remove PM. The flue gas 

is then vented to a high pressure venturi 

scrubber for the removal of SO2. The 

Package Boiler is a 365 MMBtu/hr boiler 

that is utilized as a back-up boiler and 

is fired by natural gas. The Package 

Boiler has no external emissions control 

devices. The No. 2 Recovery Furnace is 

a 470 MMBtu/hr recovery furnace that 

is designed to fire black liquor with 

natural gas and fuel oil as supplemental 

fuels. The combustion gases from the 

furnace are vented to an ESP for PM 

control. The No. 2 Smelt Dissolving 

Tank is a recovery operation for the No. 

2 Recovery Furnace. The No. 2 Smelt 

Dissolving Tank is vented through a 

separate scrubber system for PM control. 

No. 1 and No. 2 Lime Kilns convert lime 

mud to lime. Both the No. 1 and No. 2 

Lime Kilns are fired with natural gas 

and/or fuel oil, have low NOX burners, 

and are vented to a scrubber to control 

particulate emissions. 

ADEM concluded that BART for PM 

is the current suite of installed add-on 

controls which control particulates at 

the International Paper-Courtland mill 

and have efficiencies of greater than 90 

percent. 

For SO2, ADEM determined no 

additional controls to be BART. 

International Paper evaluated five 

control options for the No. 1 

Combination Boiler and the No. 2 

Recovery Boiler. For International 

Paper-Courtland, the 98th percentile 24- 

hour visibility improvement from the 

SO2 controls evaluated for these two 

units ranged from 0.013 deciview to 

0.063 deciview. The No.2 Combination 

Boiler is already well controlled for SO2

and was not evaluated further. Although 

both the Package Boiler and the No. 2 

Smelt Dissolving Tank are BARTeligible sources for SO2, a control 

effectiveness review was not performed 

since both of these sources only emit 

approximately one ton per year of SO2. 

The No. 1 and No. 2 Lime Kilns are also 

BART-eligible sources for SO2. 

However, since both these lime kilns are 

subject to and are complying with 

MACT standard 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart 

MM through the use of wet scrubbers, 

and since the inherent nature of lime 

kilns minimize SO2 emissions, the 

current approach to MACT compliance 

was considered BART for SO2 for these 

lime kilns. 

For NOX ADEM concluded that the 

control of NOX is only reasonable for the 

No. 2 Combination Boiler, which is 

required to install low NOX burners to 

meet BART. Installation and operation 

of these burners is projected to result in 

a 30 percent reduction in the unit’s 

emissions. For the No. 1 Combination 

Boiler, ADEM required International 

Paper Courtland to either install low 

NOX Burners or only operate the No. 1 

Combination Boiler when any of the No. 

2 Combination Boiler, the No. 2 

Recovery Furnace, the No. 3 

Combination Boiler, or the No. 3 

Recovery Furnace is either not operating 

or in periods of start-up of shutdown. 

International Paper reviewed seven 

additional NOX control options for the 

No. 1 and No. 2 Combination boilers 

and the Package Boiler. For 

International Paper-Courtland, the 98th 

percentile 24-hour visibility 

improvement from the evaluated NOX

controls on these two units ranged from 

0.013 deciview to 0.097 deciview. For 

NOX, both the No. 1 and No. 2 Lime 

Kilns currently employ low NOX

burners in the form of combustion flame 

tuning to reduce NOX emissions and no 

other controls where deemed feasible. 

No additional NOX controls were 

identified as being available for the No. 

2 Recovery Boiler or the package natural 

gas boiler. 

EPA reviewed the ADEM BART 

determination for International Paper— 

Courtland and proposes to concur with 

Alabama’s analyses and conclusions for 

BART for this facility. EPA believes that 

the analyses were conducted consistent 

with EPA’s BART Guidelines and EPA’s 

Air Pollution Control Cost Manual and 

that they reflect a reasonable application 

of EPA’s guidance to this source. 

3. Enforceability of Limits. 

Alabama adopted the BART emissions 

limits for Solutia-Decatur and 

International Paper Co-Courtland Mill 

into the State’s regional haze SIP (see 

Tables 6 and 7). ADEM incorporated the 

BART emissions limits into state 

operating permits and submitted copies 

of these BART permit provisions for 

information as part of the State’s 

regional haze SIP (see Appendix H–5 of 

the Alabama regional haze submittal). 

The BART emissions limits will also be 

added to the facilities’ title V permits 

according to the procedures established 

in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF BART EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SOLUTIA-DECATUR

Emissions unit 

Emission limitations 

NOX SO2 PM10

Boiler 5 ............................................................................ 101.22 lb/hr ....................... 1.40 lb/MMBtu & 406 lb/hr 0.12 lb/MMBtu & 34.8 lb/ 

hr. 

Boiler 6 ............................................................................ 109.72 lb/hr ....................... 1.40 lb/MMBtu & 448 lb/hr 0.12 lb/MMBtu & 38.4 lb/ 

hr. 

Boiler 7 ............................................................................ 0.36 lb/MMbtu & 193 lb/hr 0.47 lb/MMBtu & 252 lb/hr 0.10 lb/MMBtu & 64.33 lb/ 

hr. 

Coker 1 ............................................................................ 104.43 lb/hr ....................... 3.57 lb/MMBtu & 1,370.1 

lb/hr.

0.12 lb/MMBtu. 

Coker 2 ............................................................................ 104.43 lb/hr ....................... 3.57 lb/MMBtu & 1,370.1 

lb/hr.

0.12 lb/MMBtu. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17The term, ‘‘gr/SDCF,’’ is the abbreviation used 

in the Alabama regional haze SIP submittal for 

‘‘grains per dry standard cubic foot.’’ 

18Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas 

similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions 

within the state to address some or all of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ 

Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area 

state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). 

Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on 

reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop 

their regional haze SIP submittals. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BART EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR INTERNATIONAL PAPER-COURTLAND

Emissions unit 

Emission limitations 

NOX SO2 PM10

No. 1 Combination Boiler ................................................ 93.15 lb/hr or operational 

limitations.

147.3 lb/hr ......................... 0.17 gr/SDCF17 @ 50% 

Excess Air. 

No. 2 Combination Boiler ................................................ 338.13 lb/hr ....................... 1.20 lb/MMBtu & 65.5 lb/hr 0.10 lb/MMBtu. 

Package Boiler ................................................................ 0.20 MMBtu & ...................

<1,200 million ft3 of natural 

gas/12 month period.

1.80 lb/MMbtu .................... 0.10 lb/MMBtu. 

No. 2 Recovery Furnace ................................................. 152 lb/hr ............................ 432 lb/hr ............................ 0.044 gr/SDCF* at 8% O2

and 67 lb/hr. 

No. 2 Smelt Dissolving Tank ........................................... Not Applicable ................... 0.20 lb/hr ........................... 0.20 lb/ton of black liquor 

solids. 

No. 1 Lime Kiln ................................................................ 3.5 lb/hr ............................. 0.10 lb/hr ........................... 1.0 lb/air dried ton of pulp. 

No. 2 Lime Kiln ................................................................ 19.40 lb/hr ......................... 0.23 lb/hr ........................... 0.067 gr/sdcf at 10%. 

ADEM also adopted BART exemption 

provisions for Rock-Tenn Mill 

Company, LLC (previously Gulf States 

Paper); Escambia Operating Company, 

LLC; Mobile Energy Services Company, 

LLC; and Tronox LLC (previously Kerr 

McGee Chemical), which were added to 

the operating permits of these four 

facilities. Copies of these operating 

permits were also included for 

information in Appendix H–5 of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP submittal. 

The compliance date for the newly 

adopted limitations for Solutia-Decatur, 

International Paper Co-Courtland Mill, 

and Escambia Operating Company-Big 

Escambia Creek, is January 1, 2013. The 

BART exemption provisions were 

effective upon issuance of the state 

permit. 

7. RPGs 

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

requires states to establish RPGs for 

each Class I area within the state 

(expressed in deciviews) that provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility. VISTAS 

modeled visibility improvements under 

existing Federal and state regulations for 

the period 2004–2018, and additional 

control measures which the VISTAS 

states planned to implement in the first 

implementation period. At the time of 

VISTAS modeling, some of the other 

states with sources potentially 

impacting visibility at the Alabama 

Class I area had not yet made final 

control determinations for BART and/or 

reasonable progress, and thus, these 

controls were not included in the 

modeling submitted by Alabama. Any 

controls resulting from those 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and resulting 

visibility improvement, which give 

further assurances that Alabama will 

achieve its RPGs. The modeling 

demonstrates that the 2018 base control 

scenario provides for an improvement 

in visibility better than the uniform rate 

of progress for the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area for the most impaired days over 

the period of the implementation plan 

and ensures no degradation in visibility 

for the least impaired days over the 

same period. 

As shown in Table 8 below, 

Alabama’s RPG for the 20 percent worst 

days provide greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than the uniform 

rate of progress for the State’s Class I 

area (i.e., 24.80 deciviews in 2018). 

Also, the RPG for the 20 percent best 

days provides greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than current best 

day conditions. The modeling 

supporting the analysis of these RPGs is 

consistent with EPA guidance prior to 

the CAIR remand. The regional haze 

provisions specify that a state may not 

adopt a RPG that represents less 

visibility improvement than is expected 

to result from other CAA requirements 

during the implementation period. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the 

CAIR states with Class I areas, like 

Alabama, took into account emissions 

reductions anticipated from CAIR in 

determining their 2018 RPGs.18 Reliance 

on CAIR as part of a state’s LTS to 

achieve the state-adopted RPGs is 

discussed in section IV.C of this action. 

TABLE 8—ALABAMA 2018 RPGS

[In deciviews] 

Class I Area 

Baseline 

visibility— 

20 percent 

worst days 

2018 RPG— 

20 percent 

worst days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Uniform rate of 

progress at 

2018— 

20 percent 

worst days 

Baseline 

visibility— 

20 percent 

best days 

2018 RPG— 

20 percent 

best days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Sipsey Wilderness Area ....................................................... 29.03 23.53 (5.50) 24.80 15.57 14.22 (1.35) 

The RPGs for the Class I area in 

Alabama are based on modeled 

projections of future conditions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

done. These projections can be expected 

to change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11955 

19Alabama submitted its visibility SIP revisions 

addressing RAVI on November 20, 1985, which 

EPA approved on February 10, 1986 (51 FR 4908). 

and facilities may change their 

emissions characteristics as they install 

control equipment to comply with new 

rules. It would be both impractical and 

resource-intensive to require a state to 

continually revise the RPGs every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. 

EPA recognized the problems of a 

rigid requirement to meet a long-term 

goal based on modeled projections of 

future visibility conditions, and 

addressed the uncertainties associated 

with RPGs in several ways. EPA made 

clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 

mandatory standard which must be 

achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR 

at 35733. At the same time, EPA 

established a requirement for a 

midcourse review and, if necessary, 

correction of the states’ regional haze 

plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In 

particular, the RHR calls for a five-year 

progress review after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. The purpose 

of this progress review is to assess the 

effectiveness of emissions management 

strategies in meeting the RPGs and to 

provide an assessment of whether 

current implementation strategies are 

sufficient for the state or affected states 

to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, 

based on its assessment, that the RPGs 

for a Class I area will not be met, the 

RHR requires the state to take 

appropriate action. See 40 CFR 

52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate 

action will depend on the basis for the 

state’s conclusion that the current 

strategies are insufficient to meet the 

RPGs. Alabama specifically committed 

to follow this process in the LTS portion 

of its submittal. Accordingly, EPA 

proposes to approve Alabama’s RPGs for 

the Sipsey Wilderness Area. 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in sections 

III.F and III.G of this action. Under 

EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI 

portion of a state SIP must address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 

vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a 

‘‘view perceived from within the 

mandatory Class I area of a specific 

landmark or panorama located outside 

the boundary of the mandatory Class I 

area.’’ Visibility in any mandatory Class 

I area includes any integral vista 

associated with that area. The FLMs did 

not identify any integral vistas in 

Alabama. In addition, the Class I area in 

Alabama is neither experiencing RAVI, 

nor are any of its sources affected by the 

RAVI provisions. Thus, the Alabama 

regional haze SIP submittal does not 

explicitly address the two requirements 

regarding coordination of the regional 

haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. However, Alabama 

previously made a commitment to 

address RAVI should the FLM certify 

visibility impairment from an 

individual source.19 EPA proposes to 

find that this regional haze submittal 

appropriately supplements and 

augments Alabama’s RAVI visibility 

provisions to address regional haze by 

updating the monitoring and LTS 

provisions as summarized below in this 

section. 

In its July 15, 2008, submittal, ADEM 

updated its visibility monitoring 

program and developed an LTS to 

address regional haze. Also in this 

submittal, ADEM affirmed its 

commitment to complete items required 

in the future under EPA’s RHR. 

Specifically, ADEM made a 

commitment to review and revise its 

regional haze implementation plan and 

submit a plan revision to EPA by July 

31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze 

regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the 

RAVI LTS regulations, ADEM made a 

commitment to submit a report to EPA 

on progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I area located within 

Alabama and in each mandatory Class I 

area located outside Alabama which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within Alabama. The progress report is 

required to be in the form of a SIP 

revision and is due every five years 

following the initial submittal of the 

regional haze SIP. Consistent with 

EPA’s monitoring regulations for RAVI 

and regional haze, Alabama will rely on 

the IMPROVE network for compliance 

purposes, in addition to any RAVI 

monitoring that may be needed in the 

future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4). Also, the Alabama new 

source review (NSR) rules, previously 

approved in the State’s SIP, continue to 

provide a framework for review and 

coordination with the FLMs on new 

sources which may have an adverse 

impact on visibility in either form (i.e., 

RAVI and/or regional haze) in any 

federal Class I area. 

The original Alabama visibility SIP 

submitted to EPA November 20, 1985, 

addressing the NSR and monitoring 

strategy requirements in 40 CFR 51.307 

and 40 CFR 51.305, respectively, was 

supplemented by an EPA regulation (40 

CFR 52.61) on November 24, 1987 (52 

FR 45138), which incorporates 40 CFR 

52.29 into the Alabama SIP and 

continues to be in effect. Because the 

July 15, 2008, submittal appropriately 

addresses the LTS requirements and 

supersedes these previous requirements, 

EPA is proposing to rescind the federal 

regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 and rely on 

the provisions in Alabama’s regional 

haze SIP submittal to meet these 

requirements. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Alabama is the 

IMPROVE network. As discussed in 

section IV.B.2. of this action, there is 

currently one IMPROVE site in 

Alabama, which serves as the 

monitoring site for the Sipsey 

Wilderness Area. The IMPROVE 

measurements are central to Alabama’s 

regional haze monitoring strategy. Each 

IMPROVE monitor represents a different 

airshed. 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, and is relied 

upon in the July 15, 2008, regional haze 

submittal. In the submittal, Alabama 

states its intention to rely on the 

IMPROVE network for complying with 

the regional haze monitoring 

requirement in EPA’s RHR for the 

current and future regional haze 

implementation periods. 

Data produced by the IMPROVE 

monitoring network will be used nearly 

continuously for preparing the five-year 

progress reports and the 10-year SIP 

revisions, each of which relies on 

analysis of the preceding five years of 

data. The Visibility Information 

Exchange Web System (VIEWS) Web 

site has been maintained by VISTAS 

and the other RPOs to provide ready 

access to the IMPROVE data and data 

analysis tools. Alabama is encouraging 

VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain 

the VIEWS or a similar data 

management system to facilitate 

analysis of the IMPROVE data. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, there is long-term 

limited monitoring by FLMs which 

provides additional insight into progress 

toward regional haze goals. Such 

measurements include a PM2.5 Federal 

Reference Method monitor. 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

In December 2006 and May 2007, the 

State Air Directors from the VISTAS 

states held formal interstate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

consultation meetings. The purpose of 

the meetings was to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

FLM and EPA representatives to 

participate and to provide additional 

feedback. The Directors discussed the 

results of analyses showing 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from states to each of the Class I areas 

in the VISTAS region. 

Additionally, ADEM hosted a meeting 

amongst the States of Alabama, Florida, 

Mississippi, and Louisiana in January 

2007 to discuss issues specific to the 

Breton Wilderness Area located in 

Louisiana. Also, Louisiana participated 

in a June 2007 FLM/EPA meeting hosted 

by VISTAS in Asheville, North Carolina, 

where each state discussed the process 

used to evaluate sources for reasonable 

progress. ADEM also participated in 

Central Regional Air Planning 

Association (CENRAP) meetings during 

development of its SIP to keep abreast 

of CENRAP’s and Louisiana’s analyses 

and plans for Breton with respect to 

regional haze. 

ADEM has evaluated the impact of 

Alabama sources on Class I areas in 

neighboring states. The state in which a 

Class I area is located is responsible for 

determining which sources, both inside 

and outside of that state, to evaluate for 

reasonable progress controls. Because 

many of these states had not yet defined 

their criteria for identifying sources to 

evaluate for reasonable progress, 

Alabama applied its AOI methodology 

to identify sources in the State that have 

emissions units with evaluated visibility 

impacts large enough at Class I areas 

outside Alabama to potentially warrant 

further evaluation and analysis. 

Alabama identified three non-EGU 

emissions units at two facilities in the 

State as meeting its minimum threshold 

for a reasonable progress control 

evaluation at two Class I areas outside 

of the State, i.e., Breton Wilderness Area 

in Louisiana and St. Marks Wilderness 

Area in Florida. Based on an evaluation 

of the four reasonable progress statutory 

factors, Alabama determined that there 

are no additional control measures for 

these three Alabama non-EGU emissions 

units that would be reasonable to 

implement to mitigate visibility impacts 

in Class I areas in these neighboring 

states. Additionally, Alabama identified 

EGUs in the State impacting Class I 

areas in the Joyce-Kilmer Wilderness 

area in North Carolina (TVA-Widows 

Creek: Point ID 008); the Breton area in 

Louisiana (Alabama Power Company— 

Barry: Point ID 002, 003, 004, 005); and 

the Cohutta Wilderness Area in Georgia 

(TVA-Widows Creek: Point ID 009, 008). 

Since these EGUs are subject to CAIR, 

Alabama determined that no additional 

SO2 controls beyond CAIR are 

reasonable for this implementation 

period for these EGUs. ADEM has 

consulted with these states regarding its 

reasonable progress control evaluations 

showing no cost-effective controls 

available for those emissions units in 

Alabama contributing at least one 

percent to visibility impairment at Class 

I areas in the states. The documentation 

for these formal consultations is 

provided in Appendix J of Alabama’s 

SIP. 

In addition to Alabama’s independent 

evaluation of the impacts of its sources 

on neighboring states’ Class I areas, the 

State received letters from the States of 

Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, 

which are included in Appendix J of 

Alabama’s regional haze SIP submittal. 

North Carolina’s letter to Alabama, 

dated August 2, 2007, states that there 

are no emissions units in North Carolina 

that contribute one percent or greater to 

visibility impairment at the Sipsey 

Wilderness Area. North Carolina 

identified one Alabama emissions unit, 

TVA-Widows Creek (Point ID 008) in 

Jackson County, Alabama, as meeting 

North Carolina’s threshold for a 

reasonable progress control evaluation, 

and requested that Alabama share its 

reasonable progress control evaluation 

for this unit. Because this unit is subject 

to CAIR and has a scrubber already 

installed, Alabama has determined that 

no additional controls beyond CAIR are 

reasonable for this unit for this first 

implementation period. The letter from 

Georgia asked Alabama to share its final 

list of emissions units for reasonable 

progress evaluation. Correspondence 

from Florida in May 2007 initially 

identified four emissions units at two 

Alabama facilities, Sanders Lead (Point 

ID 003 and 008) and Continental Carbon 

Company (Point ID 003 and 008), on its 

working list as meeting Florida’s 

threshold for a reasonable progress 

control evaluation. In November 2007, 

Florida sent the final list of units 

meeting the State’s threshold to evaluate 

for reasonable progress control, which 

did not identify any units in Alabama. 

Regarding the impact of sources 

outside of the State on Class I areas in 

Alabama, the State identified two 

emissions units at Georgia Power 

Company-Plant Yates that contribute 

one percent or greater to visibility 

impairment at the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area. These two EGUs are subject to 

CAIR. Therefore, ADEM did not request 

further evaluation of these units from 

the State of Georgia. 

As noted above, ADEM has consulted 

with Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 

and Louisiana regarding the emissions 

units in Alabama contributing at least 

one percent to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in those states. The 

documentation for these formal 

consultations is provided in Appendix J 

of Alabama’s SIP and is also 

summarized in the SIP Narrative. EPA 

proposes to find that Alabama has 

adequately addressed the consultation 

requirements in the RHR and 

appropriately documented its 

consultation with other states in its SIP 

submittal. 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

Through the VISTAS RPO, Alabama 

and the nine other member states 

worked extensively with the FLMs from 

the U.S. Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture to develop technical 

analyses that support the regional haze 

SIPs for the VISTAS states. The 

proposed regional haze plan for 

Alabama was out for FLM and EPA 

discussions in the November to 

December 2007 period. Alabama 

subsequently modified the plan to 

address FLM comments received in 

2007 and provided the revised plan for 

full public comment in the March to 

April 2008 time period. On the initial 

November 2007 draft plan, the FLM 

comments expressed concern regarding 

the State’s proposal to use the glidepath 

data points as the RPGs for the best and 

worst days at the Sipsey Wilderness 

Area instead of the modeled levels, 

stating this does not meet the RHR. The 

State corrected this approach in the 

proposed plan issued for public 

comment. The FLMs requested that 

Alabama add more information from the 

appendices into the main body of the 

SIP submittal regarding the impacts of 

sources outside of the State on the 

Sipsey Wilderness Area and the impacts 

of Alabama sources on out-of-state Class 

I areas. The State augmented the SIP 

narrative with the requested information 

in the proposed plan issued for public 

comment. To address the requirement 

for continuing consultation procedures 

with the FLMs under 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(4), ADEM made a commitment 

in the SIP to ongoing consultation with 

the FLMs on regional haze issues 

throughout implementation of its plan. 

ADEM also affirms in the SIP that FLM 

consultation is required for those 

sources subject to the State’s NSR 

regulations. 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

As summarized in section IV.D of this 

action, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(g), ADEM affirmed its 

commitment to submitting a progress 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11957 

report in the form of a SIP revision to 

EPA every five years following the 

initial submittal of the Alabama regional 

haze SIP. The report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

mandatory Class I area located within 

Alabama and within each mandatory 

Class I area located outside Alabama 

which may be affected by emissions 

from within Alabama. ADEM also 

offered recommendations for several 

technical improvements that, as funding 

allows, can support the State’s next 

LTS. These recommendations are 

discussed in detail in the Alabama 

submittal in Appendix K. 

If another state’s regional haze SIP 

identifies that Alabama’s SIP needs to 

be supplemented or modified, and if, 

after appropriate consultation Alabama 

agrees, today’s action may be revisited 

or additional information and/or 

changes will be addressed in the fiveyear progress report SIP revision. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of a revision to the Alabama SIP 

submitted by the State of Alabama on 

July 15, 2008, as meeting some of the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

as set forth in sections 169A and 169B 

of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300–308, 

as described previously in this action. 

Also in this action, EPA is proposing to 

rescind the federal regulations in 40 

CFR 52.61 that were approved into the 

Alabama SIP on November 24, 1987, 

and to rely on the provisions in 

Alabama’s July 15, 2008, SIP submittal 

to meet the LTS requirements for RAVI 

at 40 CFR 51.306. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

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

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

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

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the state is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the federal 

SIP approval does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

federal-state relationship under the 

CAA, preparation of a flexibility 

analysis would constitute federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 

must prepare a budgetary impact 

statement to accompany any proposed 

or final rule that includes a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more. 

Under section 205, EPA must select the 

most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

proposal does not include a federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under state or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to state, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

applies to any rule that: (1) is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it does not involve 

decisions intended to mitigate 

environmental health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4689 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0153, FRL–9638–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of a revision to the Missouri 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Missouri 

through the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources (MDNR) on August 5, 

2009, and supplemental information 

submitted on January 30, 2012, that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

addresses the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and EPA’s rules 

that require states to prevent any future 

and remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

proposing a limited approval of this SIP 

revision to implement the regional haze 

requirements for Missouri on the basis 

that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Missouri SIP. In a 

separate action EPA has previously 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

Missouri regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District Court of Columbia (DC Circuit) 

to the EPA of the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR). See 76 FR 82219. 

Therefore, we are not taking action in 

this notice to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2012–0153 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: 913–551–7884 (please alert the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments. 

4. Mail: Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

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

Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy 

Wolfersberger. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air 

Planning and Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

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

Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy 

Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 

5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012– 

0153. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS