Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24385 

TABLE 1—EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Subchapter 2Q Air Quality Permits 

*******

Section .0200 Permit Fees 

Sect .0207 ............................... Annual Emissions Reporting 7/1/07 4/24/2012 [Insert citation of 

publication].

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–9618 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–1043; A–1–FRL– 

9652–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Maine; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to 

the Maine State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) that addresses regional haze for the 

first planning period from 2008 through 

2018. It was submitted by the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(Maine DEP) on December 9, 2010, with 

supplemental submittals on September 

14, 2011, and November 9, 2011. This 

revision addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

rules that require States to prevent any 

future, and remedy any existing, 

manmade 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’’). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on May 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2010–1043. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the 

contact 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 legal holidays 

Copies of the documents relevant to 

this action are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Bureau of 

Air Quality Control, Department of 

Environmental Protection, First Floor of 

the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental 

Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 

04333–0017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–02), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1697, fax number (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

The following outline is provided to 

aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On November 29, 2011, EPA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maine. See 76 FR 73956. The NPR 

proposed approval of the Maine State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

planning period from 2008 through 

2018. It was submitted by the Maine 

DEP on December 9, 2010, with 

supplemental submittals on September 

14, 2011, and November 9, 2011. 

Specifically, EPA proposed to approve 

Maine’s December 9, 2010 SIP revision, 

and its supplements, as meeting the 

applicable implementing regulations 

found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA also 

proposed to approve Maine’s Best 

Achievable Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determinations for several sources and 

to incorporate the license conditions 

that implement those determinations 

into the SIP. In addition, EPA proposed 

to approve Maine’s low sulfur fuel oil 

legislation, 38 MRSA § 603–A, sub- 

§ 2(A), and to incorporate this 

legislation into the Maine SIP. 

Furthermore, EPA is also proposed to 

approve the following Maine state 

regulation and incorporate it into the 

SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of 

Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers. 

A detailed explanation of the 

requirements for regional haze SIPs, as 

well as EPA’s analysis of Maine’s 

Regional Haze SIP submittal was 

provided in the NPR and is not restated 

here. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received a number of comments 

on our proposal to approve Maine’s 

Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments 

were received from the citizen’s group 

Credo Action and the National Park 

Service (NPS). A joint letter from the 

National Parks Conservation 

Association (NPCA), the Appalachian 

Mountain Club (AMC), the Conservation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1NPS also compared Maine’s determinations of 

cost effectiveness to the determinations made by 

these States. 

2www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/38/ 

title38sec603-A.html. 

3www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ 

ng_pri_sum_dcu_SME_a.htm. 

4www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ 

ng_pri_sum_dcu_SME_m.htm. 

Law Foundation (CLF), and the Natural 

Resources Council of Maine 

(collectively ‘‘NPCA’’) was also 

submitted. Many of the NPCA 

comments echoed comments submitted 

by NPS. The U.S Forest Service 

reiterated previous comments submitted 

on Maine’s proposed rulemaking and 

acknowledge the work that the State of 

Maine has accomplished and 

encouraged the State of Maine to 

continue to reduce regional haze. The 

following discussion summarizes and 

responds to the relevant comments 

received on EPA’s proposed approval of 

Maine’s Regional Haze SIP. 

Comment: NPCA commented that in 

light of the $/ton limits accepted by 

other States (e.g., $7,300/ton in Oregon, 

$5,000/ton in Colorado, and $7,000– 

$10,000/ton in Wisconsin), Maine lacks 

a State cost effectiveness threshold in its 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) determinations.1

Response: While States have the 

option to develop a cost effectiveness 

threshold, the Regional Haze Rule does 

not require States to set a bright line 

threshold for cost effectiveness. 

Pursuant to Section 51.308(e)(A), the 

State is required to consider five factors 

when determining the appropriate level 

of BART control: The cost of 

compliance; the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts; any 

pollution control equipment in use at 

the source; the remaining useful life of 

the source; and the degree of 

improvement which may be reasonably 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. Even though the cited 

States adopted a dollar per ton 

threshold, controls with costs below the 

established cost threshold were 

sometimes rejected when considered in 

conjunction with the other factors. In 

Oregon, only one BART-eligible source 

was subject to BART: The PGE 

Boardman coal-fired EGU. Although the 

technology option of new Low NOX

Burners with modified over-fire air 

(NLNB/MOFA) plus selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) could be 

considered cost effective ($1,816/ton) 

for the PGE Boardman, the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) rejected this technology option 

because adding SNCR only provided an 

additional 0.18 deciview (dv) of 

visibility improvement over NLNB/ 

MOFA at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area 

and because ODEQ was concerned with 

the potential for excess ammonia 

emissions from the SNCR (commonly 

referred to as ammonia slip) which 

could result in increased rates of 

secondary particulate matter 

(ammonium sulfate). In addition, ODEQ 

rejected Semi-dry Flue Gas 

Desulfurization (SDFGD) at a cost of 

$5,535/ton SO2 removed ($7,200/ton 

incremental cost) in favor for Dry 

Sorbent Injection (DSI) at $3,370/ton 

SO2 removed. See 76 FR 12651. The 

State of Colorado also rejected BART 

controls with a cost of control less than 

$5,000/ton (e.g., DSI at a cost of $2,482/ 

ton SO2 removed) due to minimal 

expected visibility improvement. In the 

case of Wisconsin, the State only has 

one non-EGU subject to BART. The 

BART level of control selected by the 

State for this source is $1,580/ton SO2

removed and $1,868/ton NOX removed 

with a combined visibility improvement 

of 2.68 dv at the highest impacted Class 

I Area and 5.03 dv visibility 

improvement across all four Class I 

Areas impacted by this BART source. 

See 77 FR 11928 (February 28, 2012). In 

addition, all three of the States cited by 

NPCA applied a 0.5 dv minimum 

visibility impact threshold for 

determining what BART-eligible sources 

would be subject to BART. Maine 

instead decided that all BART-eligible 

sources, regardless of their impact on 

Class I Areas, would be subject to 

BART. Therefore, the cost effectiveness 

thresholds cited by NPCA are not 

comparable to Maine’s determinations. 

The Regional Haze Rule does not 

require States to use a set threshold in 

evaluating cost effectiveness and the 

lack of a cost effectiveness threshold 

does not render Maine’s BART 

determinations unreasonable. 

Comment: NPS commented that the 

analysis of lower sulfur fuel oil for 

Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 

and 2 is incomplete, inaccurate, and 

does not follow BART Guidelines or the 

MANE–VU recommendations. NPS 

suggested that EPA should at least 

evaluate the lower sulfur residual oils 

for the Verso Androscoggin Power 

Boilers. 

Response: According to Appendix Y 

to Part 51—Guidelines for BART 

Determinations under the Regional Haze 

Rule (BART Guidelines), ‘‘[F]or sources 

other than 750 MW power plants, 

however, States retain the discretion to 

adopt approaches that differ from the 

guidelines.’’ See 70 FR 39156 (July 6, 

2005). Verso Androscoggin is a pulp and 

paper plant and Maine’s analysis is 

therefore not required to follow the 

BART Guidelines. Maine has flexibility 

in addressing the five factors of the 

BART analysis. 

The MANE–VU recommended level 

of control for industrial boilers is the 

use of 0.5% sulfur in fuel #6 oil. 

Maine’s BART limit for Verso 

Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 and 2 

requires the reduction from 1.8% sulfur 

in fuel oil to the use of 0.7% sulfur in 

fuel oil by January 1, 2013. The source 

will, however, be subject to the MANE– 

VU recommended 0.5% sulfur in fuel 

limit by no later than January 1, 2018, 

pursuant to Maine’s low sulfur fuel oil 

legislation, 38 MRSA § 603–A, sub- 

§ 2(A) 2 which will become federally 

enforceable under today’s action. 

Therefore these boilers will be required 

to meet the MANE–VU recommended 

level of control during the first planning 

period as part of the long term strategy. 

Comment: NPS commented that in its 

analysis of the switching to natural gas, 

Verso Androscoggin assumed $9.43 per 

thousand cubic feet (MCF) which is 

more than double the current price. NPS 

claimed that EPA must reevaluate the 

costs of switching to natural gas using 

current cost information. 

Response: The Verso Androscoggin 

analysis of switching to natural gas 

assumed $9.43/MCF based on 2009 

data. The most recent data from U.S. 

Energy Information Administration 

indicates an increase in the 2010 annual 

industrial price of natural gas to $11.23/ 

MCF 3 and monthly industrial prices are 

in the range of $8.61 to $12.08/MCF for 

the second half of 2011.4 Therefore, the 

use of $9.43/MCF is acceptable. 

Comment: NPS commented that 

Maine DEP improperly dismissed 

application of FGR (Flue Gas 

Recirculation) at Verso Androscoggin 

from further evaluation on the premise 

that it would result in minimal 

reductions in NOX emissions. NPS 

commented that FGR was determined to 

be technically feasible by Verso 

Androscoggin and must be fully 

evaluated if SNCR is not selected as 

BART. 

Response: The State of Maine has 

flexibility as to how the factors of the 

BART analysis are weighed and is not 

required to conduct an analysis that 

conforms to the requirements of BART 

Guidelines because Verso Androscoggin 

is not a 750 MW power plant. The State 

determined that the installation of flue 

gas recirculation at Verso Androscoggin 

would require the enlargement of the 

burner openings in both boilers. When 

combined with the existing Low NOX

burners, the FGR is only expected to 

result in a maximum of seven percent 

reduction in NOX emissions which 

would not be expected to provide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24387 

5 If FGR were installed at the facility without the 

already installed Low NOX burners it would 

achieve the maximum 15% reduction in NOX. 

However, when combined with the already 

installed Low NOX burners, the FGR only achieves 

a further reduction of 7% from the already lower 

NOX levels generated by the Low NOX burners. 

6EPA rejected a similar argument in regards to 

the PGE Boardman coal-fired EGU in Oregon. In 

that case, use of the CCM lead to a cost $725/ton 

less than that used by Oregon. We similarly rejected 

that difference in cost effectiveness as 

inconsequential to the State’s final decision. See 76 

FR 38997, 39000 (July 5, 2011). 

7 75 FR 64230, October 19, 2010—EPA’s Proposed 

Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for 

Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology 

for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

substantial visibility improvement.5

EPA finds that Maine reasonably 

rejected the installation of FGR. 

Comment: NPS commented that Verso 

Androscoggin did not follow the EPA’s 

Cost Control Manual (CCM) method for 

evaluating add-on controls and Verso 

Androscoggin’s capital recovery factor is 

inflated. NPS recalculated the cost 

effectiveness of the SNCR using a 

capital recovery factor using 7% interest 

over a 20-year life as opposed to 12.4% 

interest over a 10-year life used by the 

State. NPS found the revised cost to be 

$5,553/ton NOX removed instead of the 

Maine DEP value of $5,973/ton NOX

removed. However, due to the 

assumption of low utilization, NPS 

suggested that the cost-effectiveness be 

reevaluated should boiler utilization 

increase. 

Response: The Regional Haze Rule 

does not require States to use EPA’s 

CCM to evaluate the costs of control 

technologies, though it represents a 

good reference tool. See 70 FR 39104, 

39127 (July 6, 2005). The analysis 

provided by NPS, which used the CCM 

procedure for coal-fired EGUs 

(including a lower capital recovery 

factor than the State used) and EPA’s 

IPM model, was only $420/ton less than 

Maine’s cost determination, supporting 

the reasonableness of Maine’s 

evaluation. EPA does not believe that 

this relatively small difference 

calculated in cost effectiveness calls 

into question the reasonableness of the 

State’s analysis.6

States must determine BART 

eligibility and controls only during this 

first planning period and therefore 

Maine is not required to reevaluate its 

BART determination if utilization of the 

boiler increases. The Regional Haze 

Rule however makes clear that after a 

BART determination is made, the source 

is subject to the core requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(d). Therefore, consistent 

with the Regional Haze Rule, Maine 

may in subsequent planning periods 

reevaluate the controls and visibility 

impact of Verso Androscoggin as part of 

the State’s long term strategy. EPA finds 

that Maine reasonably concluded that 

based on the current boiler 20% 

utilization, SNCR is not a cost effective 

control for Power Boilers 1 and 2 at 

Verso Androscoggin. 

Comment: NPS commented that if 

EPA uses incremental cost to override 

an average cost-effectiveness value 

(which was at a level found to be 

reasonable in the Four Corners BART 

proposal), it must show how the 

incremental costs of switching to lower 

sulfur fuels at the Verso Androscoggin 

mill are higher than other incremental 

costs that have been accepted. 

Response: The Regional Haze Rule 

grants States the authority to make the 

initial determination of what constitutes 

BART. EPA reviews that determination 

to ensure the appropriate factors were 

considered and that the determination is 

reasonable. The Four Corners BART 

proposal cited by NPS was an EPA 

proposal for a federal implementation 

plan (FIP), where EPA has the role of 

initially determining BART, and is 

therefore not comparable to EPA’s role 

in approving Maine’s SIP. For the Verso 

Androscoggin Power Boilers, EPA did 

not rely on the incremental cost in 

making its determination. Rather, EPA 

evaluated Maine’s determination that 

with minimal visibility improvement 

beyond what would be achieved with 

0.7% sulfur #6 fuel oil, the conversion 

to #2 fuel oil or natural gas was not 

justified. In addition, as noted above, 

the Power Boilers at Verso 

Androscoggin will be subject to a 0.5% 

sulfur limit no later than January 1, 

2018, as part of Maine’s long term 

strategy. EPA finds Maine’s 

determination that 0.7% sulfur fuel oil 

represents BART for Verso 

Androscoggin to be reasonable. 

Comment: NPS commented that the 

average cost effectiveness of selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) for the Verso 

Androscoggin WFI is about $4,200/ton, 

which is much lower than EPA 

determined to be acceptable at Four 

Corners, and is lower than the 

benchmark $/ton values used by New 

York, Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 

NPS commented that Maine DEP/US 

EPA are essentially relying upon the 

cost of controls versus the resulting 

visibility improvement in reaching their 

conclusion. NPS claimed to have shown 

that the cost/dv for SCR on the Verso 

Androscoggin Waste Fuel Incinerator 

(WFI) falls well below the nationwide 

average, is reasonable, and should 

constitute BART for the Verso 

Androscoggin WFI. 

Response: The limited usefulness of 

the thresholds for Colorado, Oregon, 

and Wisconsin is discussed above. EPA 

has not yet proposed action on the New 

York submittal. Verso Androscoggin is a 

pulp and paper facility. The BART 

Guidelines do not include a 

presumptive level of control for this 

type of facility and Maine is not 

required to follow the BART Guidelines 

for setting BART for this unit. Four 

Corners is a 2,040 MW coal-fired EGU. 

The presumptive level of control for this 

type of facility is outlined in the BART 

Guidelines. The BART Guidelines do 

not include a presumptive level of 

control for pulp and paper facilities like 

Verso Androscoggin. The greatest 

visibility impact at any Class I Area due 

to NOX from Four Corners is 5.95 dv,7

whereas, the highest visibility impact 

from the WFI at Verso Androscoggin is 

0.4 dv. The highest visibility impact 

from the WFI at Verso Androscoggin is 

less than the threshold for applying 

BART to BART-eligible sources 

established by many States, including 

Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin which 

use a 0.5 dv threshold. EPA estimates 

that the cost of installation of SCR for 

Units 1 through 5 at Four Corners ranges 

from $2,515/ton–$3,163/ton.8 NPS 

estimated a cost of control for the Four 

Corners units on the order of $1,326/ 

ton–$1,882/ton NOX removed, with an 

expected visibility improvement of 2.43 

dv at the highest impacted Class I Area.9

The determination of BART for Four 

Corners is not directly comparable to 

EPA’s approval of Maine’s 

determinations because of the much 

greater expected visibility improvement 

and, as noted above, the fact that the 

Four Corners proposal is a FIP. EPA 

finds that Maine reasonably determined 

that for an expected visibility 

improvement of 0.4 dv (SCR) or 0.1 dv 

(SNCR), the installation of SCR at a cost 

of $4,200/ton or SNCR at a cost of 

$4,950/ton on the 48 MW WFI at Verso 

Androscoggin is cost prohibitive. 

Comment: NPS commented that based 

on recalculated visibility benefits at 

several of the nearest Class I Areas on 

the highest impacting visibility days, 

NPS determined that lower sulfur 

(0.5% & 0.3%) fuels at Wyman Station 

Units #3 and #4 would improve 

cumulative visibility by a total of 2.0– 

3.4 dv. This results in a cumulative costeffectiveness value of $0.8–$2.1 million/ 

dv, which NPS claimed is relatively 

inexpensive compared to the average 

$18 million/dv that they are seeing 

accepted by States and sources that are 

proposing reductions under BART. NPS 

claimed that because neither Maine DEP 

nor EPA had presented any benchmark 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

10Appendix W to the NPS comment. 

11NPS also claimed that analysis of Wyman must 

be conducted on the same basis as the analysis 

conducted at Verso Androscoggin. However, as 

discussed more fully below, States have discretion 

in determining the baseline period so long as it 

represents a reasonable determination of 

anticipated emissions from the source. 

12 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

Under the Regional Haze Program, p. 3–1 (2007), 

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

reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf. 

13 ‘‘In deciding what amount of emission 

reductions is appropriate in setting the RPG, you 

(the State) should take into account that the longterm goal of no manmade impairment encompasses 

several planning periods. It is reasonable for you to 

defer reductions to later planning periods in order 

to maintain a consistent glidepath toward the longterm goal.’’, Id. p. 1–4. 

against which to compare their cost/dv 

estimates, EPA must agree that BART 

for Wyman boilers #3 and #4 is the use 

of 0.3% sulfur residual oil. In addition, 

NPS claimed that EPA should require 

the use of 0.3% sulfur fuel oil to meet 

the 90% reduction in the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’. 

Response: The Maine BART limit for 

Wyman Station requires the reduction 

from 2.0% sulfur in fuel oil in boiler #3 

to the use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel oil and 

the continued use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel 

in boiler #4 by January 1, 2013. In 

addition, as part of Maine’s long term 

strategy, both boilers, along with the 

two other boilers on site, will be 

required to meet a further reduction to 

0.5% sulfur limit by January 1, 2018, 

pursuant to 38 MRSA § 603–A, sub- 

§ 2(A), which will become federally 

enforceable under today’s final action. 

This reduced sulfur limit will result in 

at least the additional 2.0 dv cumulative 

visibility improvement indicated in the 

NPS comments. 

While it is helpful additional 

information in some cases, the BART 

Guidelines do not require the use of 

cumulative visibility impact when 

addressing the visibility factor. NPS 

calculated that the reduction from 0.5% 

sulfur to 0.3% sulfur fuel oil would only 

result in 0.37 dv visibility improvement 

at the highest impacted area from boiler 

#3 and 0.41 dv visibility improvement 

from boiler #4, incurring an annual fuel 

cost increase of at least $886,844 and 

$4,103,863, respectively.10 However, 

NPS’s calculations improperly compare 

the implementation cost based on lower 

utilization (most recent two years) with 

visibility benefits calculated using a 

higher utilization, suggesting that the 

true cost effectiveness values at lower 

utilization values may be higher than 

those calculated by NPS. Maine 

reasonably determined that 0.7% sulfur 

is BART for Wyman Station Units #3 

and #4.11

Comment: NPS recommends that 

emission controls for two Maine 

sources, Dragon Cement, a Portland 

cement manufacturing facility, and SD 

Warren Company (SAPPI), an integrated 

pulp and paper mill, be evaluated under 

the reasonable progress provisions of 

the Regional Haze Rule. Initial BART 

modeling for these two sources 

demonstrated that they cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Acadia National Park. These two 

sources were subsequently found not to 

be subject to BART. NPS contends that, 

consistent with EPA Region 6’s partial 

disapproval of Arkansas’ Regional Haze 

SIP (Docket ID: EPA–R06–OAR–2008– 

0727), these Maine sources must be 

considered in Maine’s reasonable 

progress analysis. 

Response: Under EPA’s Guidance for 

Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under 

the Regional Haze Program 

(‘‘Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), 

States may identify key pollutants and 

source categories for the first planning 

period.12 MANE–VU and Maine 

determined that the key pollutant which 

contributes to visibility impairment in 

the Maine Class I Areas is SO2. 

Therefore, in accordance with EPA’s 

guidance,13 Maine and MANE–VU 

focused on SO2 for the first planning 

period. As a result of the four factor 

analysis for reasonable progress, 

MANE–VU and Maine agreed to pursue 

the following emission reductions 

strategies to ensure reasonable progress 

for the first planning period: Timely 

implementation of BART; 90% 

reduction in SO2 emissions from the 167 

highest visibility impacting electrical 

generating units; a reduction in the 

sulfur in fuel content of distillate and 

residual oil; and continued evaluation 

of other emission reduction strategies. 

These reduction strategies (the MANE– 

VU Ask) represent individual 

reasonable progress goals, to be 

expressed in deciviews, which MANE– 

VU States committed to achieving (i.e., 

each State modeled what reductions 

would be achieved with these strategies 

and then converted those reductions 

into visibility improvement to set their 

reasonable progress goals). Each State is 

responsible for crafting a long term 

strategy that is intended to meet these 

reasonable progress goals. The SAPPI 

Power Boiler #1 is subject to control 

under Maine’s long term strategy under 

the State’s low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 

38 MRSA § 603–A, sub-§ 2(A). This law 

limits the SAPPI Power Boiler #1 to 

burning 0.5% sulfur fuel oil no later 

than January 1, 2018. 

EPA’s partial disapproval of the 

Arkansas SIP was due to a lack of four 

factor analyses for reasonable progress. 

However, a full four factor analysis was 

undertaken at a regional level as part of 

Maine’s role in MANE–VU; this resulted 

in the MANE–VU Ask discussed above. 

See 76 FR 73956. The approval of 

Maine’s SIP is therefore not inconsistent 

with the partial disapproval of 

Arkansas’ SIP. Consistent with the 

Regional Haze Rule and EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance, Maine 

was not required to evaluate additional 

controls for Dragon Products and SAPPI 

during this first planning period in 

setting its reasonable progress goals. 

Comment: NPS commented that while 

Power Boiler #1 at SAPPI is not BARTeligible, MANE–VU modeling across the 

four Class I Areas modeled in and near 

Maine shows that Power Boiler #1 has 

a cumulative impact of 1.8 dv, with 1.4 

dv attributable to sulfates. The greatest 

impact (0.8 dv) occurs at Acadia 

National Park. With respect to SAPPI 

Power Boiler #1, NPS suggested that 

EPA should evaluate additional 

emission reductions as required by the 

reasonable progress provisions of the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

Response: Under Maine’s long term 

strategy, Power Boiler #1 at SAPPI will 

be required to reduce the current sulfur 

content of the residual oil from 2.0% to 

0.5% by January 1, 2018, pursuant to 38 

MRSA § 603–A, sub-§ 2(A) which will 

become federally enforceable in today’s 

action. When developing the emission 

projection for modeling future visibility 

conditions resulting from the various 

control strategies, Maine had originally 

projected that BART control on Power 

Boiler #1 would result in an emission 

reduction of 1,442 tons per year. Maine 

clarified that the expected reductions 

from the application of BART are still 

being met via operation changes. This 

projection is separate from the 

additional reductions which will be 

achieved by the application of the low 

sulfur fuel oil requirements of Maine’s 

long term strategy. As noted above, 

Maine’s decision to not include controls 

in addition to the MANE–VU Ask on the 

SAPPI Power Boiler #1 during this first 

planning period is consistent with the 

Regional Haze Rule and EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance. 

Comment: NPS commented that while 

they agree that Dragon (kiln) is a 

reconstructed source, they believe that 

the reasonable progress provisions of 

the Regional Haze Rule require that 

Dragon reduce NOX emissions by 45% 

as expeditiously as possible. 

Response: As noted above, Maine 

conducted a full four factor analysis to 

set its reasonable progress goals, 

resulting in the MANE–VU Ask. The 

long term strategy provision establishes 

enforceable limits that the State will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24389 

14Maine DEP’s letter refers both the concepts of 

BART ‘‘eligibility’’ and being ‘‘subject to BART,’’ 

which are slightly different concepts under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1). The letter focuses primarily on BART 

eligibility, and, as explained in this response, 

Maine had discretion to determine that Dragon 

Products is not BART-eligible. 

15 ‘‘If an affected facility subject to this subpart 

has a different emission limit or requirement for the 

same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 

of this chapter, the owner or operator of the affected 

facility must comply with the most stringent 

emission limit or requirement and is exempt from 

the less stringent requirement.’’ 40 CFR 63.1356(a). 

16As EPA noted in our proposal, for Verso 

Androscoggin we are not relying on the reduced 

utilization rate as part of our analysis of Maine’s 

SIP. 

undertake to meet the reasonable 

progress goals. We are interpreting 

NPS’s comment as requesting that EPA 

require Maine to evaluate additional 

reductions from Dragon Products as part 

of its long term strategy. 

Dragon Products currently operates 

selective non-catalytic reduction to 

reduce NOX emissions from the kiln. 

The estimated efficiency of the current 

system is 18%–22% NOX emission 

reductions. EPA agrees that the kiln is 

a candidate for future emission 

reductions as part of Maine’s long term 

strategy during subsequent planning 

periods. However, consistent with the 

Regional Haze Rule and EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance, during 

this first planning period Maine is 

reducing the visibility impacts from 

SO2, which is the greatest visibility 

impacting pollutant at its Class I Areas. 

The major pollutant of concern from 

Dragon Products is NOX. In subsequent 

planning periods, Maine will once again 

determine the pollutant(s) with the 

greatest impact on visibility and 

implement appropriate emission 

reduction measures as part of Maine’s 

long term strategy for future planning 

periods. Maine was not required to 

include emissions reductions from 

Dragon Products during this first 

planning period. 

Comment: NPCA commented that the 

Dragon Products kiln was not 

considered subject to the New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) at the 

time of its modifications. NPCA claims 

that Dragon Products was appropriately 

classified as a BART-eligible source and 

should be subject to the BART 

determination reached by Maine in its 

earlier regional haze submittal. 

Response: As noted in the proposal, 

in a letter dated September 14, 2011, 

Maine DEP informed EPA that it had 

determined that Dragon Products was a 

reconstructed source and not obliged to 

meet BART.14 EPA’s BART Guidelines 

state that ‘‘any emission unit for which 

reconstruction ‘commenced’ after 

August 7, 1977, is not BART-eligible.’’ 

See 70 FR 39104, 39160 (July 6, 2005). 

However, as noted above, the BART 

Guidelines are only mandatory for 750 

MW power plants. Therefore, Maine has 

discretion to follow the BART 

Guidelines interpretation of BARTeligible or to choose a different, 

reasonable interpretation. Maine’s 

decision that, as a source that was 

reconstructed after August 7, 1977, 

Dragon Products is not BART-eligible is 

reasonable and not inconsistent with the 

Regional Haze Rule or the CAA. 

That Dragon Products may not have 

been subject to the NSPS at the time of 

reconstruction is irrelevant for this 

purpose. Dragon Products was 

undisputedly subject to the more 

stringent Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standard, and 

therefore was exempt from the 

substantive requirements of the NSPS.15

This does not affect the reasonableness 

of Maine’s determination that Dragon 

Products is not BART-eligible. 

Comment: NPCA commented that 

Maine’s determinations must be judged 

as to their cost effectiveness in the 

context of other determinations; they 

cannot be deemed ‘‘not cost effective’’ 

without such comparison. NPCA states 

that the proposed determinations do not 

include any comparison to a State 

threshold, cost effectiveness 

determination from other States, or 

other comparative metric to justify 

rejection of reasonable costs. NPCA also 

notes that it is precisely because of the 

comparative nature of a cost 

effectiveness determination that the 

values must be calculated by the same 

method, as well as calibrated to the 

same period (present day value). 

Response: BART determinations are 

developed based on the five factor 

analysis, of which cost effectiveness is 

only one factor. For sources other than 

750 MW power plants, States retain the 

discretion to adopt approaches that 

differ from the guidelines. See earlier 

response on cost thresholds. 

Comment: NPCA commented that in 

several of the BART determinations, 

cost effectiveness determinations relied 

heavily on significantly lower usage 

(∼20%) of the source in question (e.g., 

Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers, FPL 

Wyman), claiming that this results in 

much higher cost effectiveness values 

than otherwise would have occurred. 

NPCA commented that if these 

capacities are relied upon in BART or 

reasonable progress determinations, 

they must be made enforceable, with 

permit conditions limiting the hours of 

operation or automatically requiring 

additional controls in the event that 

specific annual usage is exceeded. 

Response: According to the BART 

Guidelines, when calculating the 

average cost of control, ‘‘The baseline 

emission rate should represent a 

realistic depiction of anticipated annual 

emissions for the source. In general, for 

the existing sources subject to BART, 

you will estimate the anticipated annual 

emissions from a baseline period. In the 

absence of enforceable emission 

limitations, you calculate baseline 

emissions based upon continuation of 

past practices.’’ On the other hand, the 

BART Guidelines require enforceable 

limitations if the utilization or other 

parameters used to determine future 

emissions differ from past practice. 

BART Guidelines Section D. Step 4.d. 

See 70 FR 39156, 39167. The reduced 

utilization of Wyman Station is based 

on past practice and is consistent with 

the Regional Haze Rule.16

Comment: EPA received a comment 

letter signed by 911 members of Credo 

Action stating ‘‘As a Maine resident, I 

urge you to greatly reduce haze 

pollution at Maine’s national parks. 

Unfortunately, the plan EPA is currently 

considering doesn’t go far enough. To 

protect the health of children, 

communities and our parks, Maine and 

EPA must do more to hold polluters in 

the state accountable and require 

adequate emission reductions.’’ In 

addition to the comment letter, 122 

signators provided additional 

comments. Twenty-eight people 

requested that we protect Maine’s air 

quality, and an additional thirty-eight 

specifically mentioned Acadia National 

Park. Twenty-seven people cited health 

concerns in regards to the current air 

quality, twenty-three people expressed a 

need to reduce air pollution, and 

twenty-one people stated that we need 

stronger rules to reduce air pollution. 

Response: EPA agrees that it is 

important to reduce the visibility and 

health impacts from man-made 

pollution at the Federal Class I Areas, 

such as Acadia National Park. EPA’s 

approval of Maine’s SIP will result in 

significant reductions in emissions and 

improvement in visibility. This 

represents only the first step towards 

meeting the national goal of natural 

conditions in federal Class I Areas. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Maine’s December 

9, 2010 SIP revision as meeting the 

applicable implementing regulations 

found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is also 

approving the following license 

conditions and incorporating them into 

the SIP: Conditions (16) A, B, G, and H 

of license amendment A–406–77–3–M 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

for Katahdin Paper Company issued on 

July 8, 2009; license amendment A– 

214–77–9–M for Rumford Paper 

Company issued on January 8, 2010; 

license amendment A–22–77–5–M for 

Verso Bucksport, LLC issued November 

2, 2010; license amendment A–214–77– 

2–M for Woodland Pulp, LLC (formerly 

Domtar) issued November 2, 2010; 

license amendment A–388–77–2–M for 

FPL Energy Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV, 

LLC issued November 2, 2010; license 

amendment A–19–77–5–M for S. D. 

Warren Company issued November 2, 

2010; license amendment A–203–77– 

11–M for Verso Androscoggin LLC 

issued November 2, 2010; and license 

amendment A–180–77–1–A for Red 

Shield Environmental LLC issued 

November 29, 2007. 

In addition, EPA is approving Maine’s 

low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA 

§ 603–A, sub-§ 2(A), and incorporating 

this legislation into the Maine SIP. 

Furthermore, EPA is approving the 

following Maine state regulation and 

incorporating it into the SIP: Maine 

Chapter 150, Control of Emissions from 

Outdoor Wood Boilers. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See Section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 14, 2012. 

Signed: 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 1. 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart U—Maine 

■ 2. Section 52.1020 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding an entry for ‘‘Chapter 150’’ 

in numerical order to the table in 

paragraph (c); 

■ b. Adding an entry for ‘‘38 MRSA 

§ 603–A sub § 2(A)’’ at the end of the 

table in paragraph (c); 

■ c. Adding eight entries at the end of 

the table in paragraph (d); and 

■ d. Adding an entry at the end of the 

table in paragraph (e). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 52.1020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) EPA-approved regulations. 

EPA-APPROVED MAINE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanations 

*******

Chapter 150 ...... Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers.4/11/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register page number where the 

document begins].

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24391 

EPA-APPROVED MAINE REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date and citation 1 Explanations 

*******

38 MRSA § 603– 

A sub § 2(A).

‘‘An Act To Improve Maine’s Air 

Quality and Reduce Regional 

Haze at Acadia National Park 

and Other Federally Designated Class I Areas’’.

9/12/2009 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register page number where the 

document begins].

Only approving Sec. 1. 38 MRSA 

§ 603–A, sub-§ 2, (2) Prohibitions. 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

(d) EPA-approved State Source 

specific requirements. 

EPA-APPROVED MAINE SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit No. State effective 

date EPA approval date and citation 2 Explanations 

*******

Katahdin Paper 

Company.

A–406–77–3–M 7/8/2009 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

Approving license conditions (16) A, B, 

G, and H. 

Rumford Paper 

Company.

A–214–77–9–M 1/8/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

Verso Bucksport, 

LLC.

A–22–77–5–M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

Woodland Pulp, 

LLC.

A–214–77–2–M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

FPL Energy 

Wyman, LLC & 

Wyman IV, LLC.

A–388–77–2–M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

S. D. Warren Company.A–19–77–5–M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

Verso 

Androscoggin, 

LLC.

A–203–77–11–M 11/2/2010 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

Red Shield Environmental, LLC.A–180–77–1–A 11/29/2007 4/24/2012 [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document 

begins].

2 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

(e) Non-regulatory. 

MAINE NON-REGULATORY

Name of non 

regulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/effective 

date 

EPA approved date and 

citation 3 Explanations 

*******

Maine Regional Haze SIP and 

its supplements.

Statewide ............................... 12/9/2010; supplements submitted 9/14/2011 11/9/2011.4/24/2012 [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins].

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24392 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 24, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2012–9719 Filed 4–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0786; FRL–9663–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Tennessee State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Tennessee, through the 

Tennessee Department Environment 

and Conservation (TDEC), on April 4, 

2008. EPA is taking final action on the 

entire SIP revision except for the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determination for Eastman Chemical 

Company (Eastman). EPA is not taking 

any action on the Eastman BART 

determination at this time. Tennessee’s 

April 4, 2008, SIP revision addresses 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Specifically, 

this SIP 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 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, 

SIP revision, except for the Eastman 

BART determination, to implement the 

regional haze requirements for 

Tennessee on the basis that this SIP 

revision, as a whole, strengthens the 

Tennessee SIP. Also in this action, EPA 

is finalizing a limited disapproval of 

this same SIP revision because of the 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP revision arising from the remand by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective May 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2009–0786. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

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 

for further information. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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. 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 is the background for this final 

action? 

II. What is EPA’s response to comments 

received on this action? 

III. What is the effect of this final action? 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

action? 

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 (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 and 

volatile organic compounds. Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) 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. 

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 

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 Regional Haze Rule 

(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. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

On April 4, 2008, TDEC submitted a 

revision to Tennessee’s SIP to address 

regional haze in the State’s and other 

states’ Class I areas. On June 9, 2011, 

EPA published an action proposing a 

limited approval and a limited 

disapproval of Tennessee’s April 4, 

2008, SIP revision (including the BART 

determination for Eastman) to address 

the first implementation period for 

regional haze. See 76 FR 33662. EPA 

proposed a limited approval of 

Tennessee’s April 4, 2008, SIP revision 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES