Vol. 77 Monday, 

No. 151 August 6, 2012 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for 

Regional Haze; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0954; FRL–9709–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Michigan; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Michigan State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Michigan on November 5, 

2010, that addresses regional haze for 

the first implementation period ending 

in 2018. EPA is proposing limited 

approval of this submittal for meeting 

requirements of the regional haze 

program relating to setting reasonable 

progress goals, providing reductions for 

meeting those goals, and for mandating 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART) for most sources in the State. 

EPA is proposing limited disapproval of 

the State’s submittal for failing to satisfy 

BART for two sources. EPA is proposing 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

including nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

emission limits on these two sources to 

satisfy these requirements. 

EPA has already published a separate 

action in relation to Michigan’s plan to 

address BART for electric generating 

units. In a June 7, 2012, action, EPA 

published a limited disapproval of the 

regional haze plans for Michigan and 

other states due to their reliance on the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), but 

EPA also promulgated a FIP relying on 

EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) to address these requirements. 

EPA is also taking separate action on 

BART requirements for one source, a 

taconite plant owned by Tilden Mining, 

in conjunction with action on several 

taconite plants in Minnesota. These 

three actions combined represent 

complete action on Michigan’s regional 

haze plan for the first implementation 

period. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 5, 2012. Upon 

request, a public hearing for this 

proposal will be held on September 19, 

2012, at the Traverse Area District 

Library at 610 Woodmere Avenue, 

Traverse City, Michigan. Requests for a 

public hearing must be submitted by 

September 5, 2012 and shall be 

submitted to Pamela Blakley at blakley.

pamela@epa.gov or by any of the other 

means for submitting comments given 

in the addressee section below. The 

public hearing, if requested, will be held 

from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. or until all 

parties present have had the 

opportunity to speak. EPA shall 

maintain a Web site at http://www.epa.

gov/region5/mihaze/index.html at 

which EPA will report whether a 

hearing has been requested and will be 

held. Interested parties may also call 

Charles Hatten, at 312–886–6031, to 

inquire whether a hearing will be held. 

The public hearing will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present information and opinions to 

EPA concerning our proposal. Interested 

parties may also submit written 

comments, as discussed in the proposal. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. We will not respond 

to comments during the public hearing. 

When we publish our final action, we 

will provide written responses to all 

oral and written comments received on 

our proposal. 

At the public hearing, the hearing 

officer may limit the time available for 

each commenter to address the proposal 

to 5 minutes or less if the hearing officer 

determines it to be appropriate. We will 

not be providing equipment for 

commenters to show overhead slides or 

make computerized slide presentations. 

Any person may provide written or oral 

comments and data pertaining to our 

proposal at the Public Hearing. 

Verbatim transcripts, in English, of the 

hearing and written statements will be 

included in the rulemaking docket. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0954, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0954. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in www.regulations.

gov or in hard copy at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Charles 

Hatten at (312) 886–6031 before visiting 

the Region 5 office. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46913 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

Clean Air Act, EPA, in consultation with the 

Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 

areas where visibility is identified as an important 

value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The 

extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 

subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park 

expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and 

tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 

which they consider to have visibility as an 

important value, the requirements of the visibility 

program set forth in section 169A of the Clean Air 

Act apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 

responsibility of a Federal Land Manager. 42 U.S.C. 

7602(i). The term ‘‘Class I area’’ means a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, at 

312–886–6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov, 

regarding all elements of the action, or 

John Summerhays, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, at 312–886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov, regarding 

issues relating to BART. Both contacts 

may be reached by mail at Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Regional Haze Requirements 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibilty Conditions 

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

C. BART 

D. Long Term Strategy 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

G. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

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

regional haze plan? 

A. Class I Areas 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

D. BART 

E. Long Term Strategy 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

G. Comments 

V. What are EPA’s proposed BART 

determinations? 

A. Saint Mary’s Cement 

B. NewPage Paper 

VI. What actions is EPA proposing? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

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 that 

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

nitrates, organic particles, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust) and their 

precursors—sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, 

and in some cases ammonia (NH3) and 

volatile organic compound (VOCs). 

PM2.5 precursors react in the atmosphere 

to form fine particulate matter. Aerosol 

PM2.5 impairs visibility by scattering 

and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces clarity and the 

distance one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range, the distance at 

which an object is barely discernable, in 

many Class I areas 1 in the western 

United States is 100–150 kilometers. 

That is about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

the eastern and midwestern Class I areas 

of the United States, the average visual 

range is generally less than 30 

kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. Regional Haze Requirements 

In section 169A of the Clean Air Act 

as amended in 1977, Congress created a 

program for protecting visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the Clean Air Act 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources known 

as, ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. 

These regulations, codified at 40 CFR 

part 50, subpart P, represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

Clean Air Act in 1990 to address 

regional haze issues, and EPA 

promulgated the regional haze rule on 

July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The regional 

haze rule, which amended 40 CFR part 

50, subpart P, integrated provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

into the existing visibility regulations 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The regional haze requirements, 

found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 

a part of EPA’s subpart P 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 plan applies to all 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and the 

Virgin Islands. The first regional haze 

plans were due December 17, 2007. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require long 

term regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the 

air quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, 

effectively addressing the problem of 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 

means that states need to develop 

coordinated strategies that take into 

account the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes to address visibility impairment 

from a regional perspective because the 

pollutants that lead to regional haze can 

originate from sources located across 

broad geographic areas. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of PM2.5 and other pollutants that lead 

to regional haze. 

The Midwest RPO (MRPO) is a 

collaborative effort of state governments 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the Midwest. The 

member states are Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s implementing regulations require 

states to establish long term strategies 

for making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. States must also give 

specific attention in their plans to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require those sources to install 

BART for reducing visibility 

impairment. The specific regional haze 

SIP requirements are discussed in 

further detail below. 

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The regional haze rule establishes the 

deciview (dv) as the principal metric or 

unit for expressing visibility 

impairment. The deciview is used in 

expressing reasonable progress goals, 

defining baseline, current, and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. This visibility metric 

expresses uniform proportional changes 

in haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy. 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. The 

preamble to the regional haze rule 

provides additional details about the 

deciview. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP is submitted and at 

the progress review every five years, 

midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. The regional 

haze rule requires states with Class I 

areas (Class I states) to determine the 

degree of impairment in deciviews for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (best) and 20 percent most 

impaired (worst) visibility days over a 

specified time period at each of its Class 

I areas. Each state must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. EPA has 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural, and 

current visibility conditions in 

documents titled Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, (EPA–454/B–03–005 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/ 

t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance’’) and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule (EPA–454/B– 

03–004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) 

(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze plans, the 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ are the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

best days and 20 percent worst days for 

each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. 

Using monitoring data for 2000 through 

2004, states are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area, based on the 

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

baseline visibility conditions to natural 

visibility conditions indicates the 

amount of improvement necessary to 

attain natural visibility, while 

comparisons of subsequent conditions 

against baseline conditions will indicate 

the amount of progress made. In general, 

the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The national goal of the regional haze 

rule is a return to natural conditions 

such that anthropogenic sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. The regional 

haze plans must contain measures that 

ensure ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution. The vehicle for ensuring 

continuing progress towards achieving 

the natural visibility goal is the 

submission of a series of regional haze 

plans that for each approximately 10- 

year implementation period establish 

two distinct reasonable progress goals: 

one for the best days and one for the 

worst days for every Class I area. The 

regional haze rule does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. In setting 

reasonable progress goals, a state with a 

mandatory Class I area (Class I state) 

must provide for an improvement in 

visibility for the worst days over the 

approximately 10-year period of the SIP 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the best days. 

Class I states have significant 

discretion in establishing reasonable 

progress goals, but in establishing a 

reasonable progress goal for any 

mandatory Class I area are required to 

consider the following factors 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46915 

established in section 169A of the Clean 

Air Act and in EPA’s regional haze rule 

at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The 

costs of compliance; (2) the time 

necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; and (4) the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. The Class I states must 

demonstrate in their plans how they 

considered these factors when selecting 

the reasonable progress goals for the 

best and worst days for each 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, Regions 1–10 (pp.4–2, 

5–1). In setting the reasonable progress 

goals, states must also consider the rate 

of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (‘‘uniform 

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

the emissions reduction needed to 

achieve that rate of progress over the 

approximately 10-year period of the 

regional haze plan. In setting reasonable 

progress goals, each Class I state must 

also consult with potentially 

contributing states, i.e. those states that 

may affect visibility impairment at its 

Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

C. BART 

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act 

directs states to evaluate the use of 

retrofit controls at certain types of major 

stationary sources to address visibility 

impacts from these sources. 

Specifically, Clean Air Act section 

169A(b)(2) and EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e) require 

states to revise their SIPs to contain 

such measures as may be necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal including a 

requirement that certain categories of 

existing major stationary sources built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate BART as determined by the 

state. The set of ‘‘major stationary 

sources’’ potentially subject to BART is 

listed in Clean Air Act section 

169A(g)(7). 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (BART 

Guidelines) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. Section IV(F)(1) of 

the BART Guidelines provides that a 

state must use the approach in the 

BART Guidelines in making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating unit (EGU) with total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts. States are encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOx, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility 

in Class I areas. 

States may select de minimis impact 

levels under the BART Guidelines, 

below which a BART-eligible source 

may be considered to have a small 

enough contribution to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area to 

warrant being exempted from the BART 

requirement. The state must document 

this exemption threshold value in the 

SIP and must state the basis for its 

selection of that value. The exemption 

threshold set by the state should not be 

higher than 0.5 dv. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of each source’s impact. 

The state must document its BART 

control determination analyses. In 

making BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires 

the state to consider the following 

factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) 

the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance; 

(3) any existing pollution control 

technology in use at the source; (4) the 

remaining useful life of the source; and 

(5) the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. The plan must 

require that BART controls be installed 

and placed in operation as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date of EPA 

approval of the state’s regional haze SIP. 

Clean Air Act section 169A(g)(4); 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what 

is required by the regional haze rule, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

The regional haze rule also allows 

states to implement an alternative 

program in lieu of BART if a state can 

demonstrate that the alternative 

program will achieve greater progress 

toward the national visibility goal than 

implementing BART controls. EPA 

made such a demonstration for CAIR in 

regulations issued in 2005 which 

revised the regional haze program. 70 

FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s 

regulations provided that states 

participating in the CAIR trading 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 

CFR part 97 need not require affected 

BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, 

and maintain BART for emissions of 

SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

CAIR is not applicable to emissions of 

PM, so states were required to conduct 

a BART analysis for PM emissions from 

EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. 

However, in 2008, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit held that CAIR was 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act and remanded the 

rule to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 

550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The Court 

left CAIR in place until the Agency 

replaced it. Id. EPA replaced CAIR with 

CSAPR in August 2011. 

On June 7, 2012, EPA found that the 

trading programs in CSAPR would 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

towards the national goal than would be 

obtained by implementing BART for 

SO2 and NOX for BART-subject EGUs in 

the area subject to the Transport Rule. 

77 FR 33642. Based on this finding, EPA 

revised the regional haze plans of 

Michigan and other states to meet the 

requirements of BART for SO2 and NOX

for EGUs by participation in the trading 

programs under the Transport Rule. 

D. Long Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the Clean Air Act 

that states include in their regional haze 

SIP a 10- to 15-year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, 51.308(d)(3) 

requires that states include a long term 

strategy in their regional haze SIPs. The 

long term strategy is the compilation of 

all control measures a state will use 

during the implementation period of the 

specific SIP submission to meet 

applicable reasonable progress goals. 

The long term strategy must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

The regional haze rule requires that, 

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 impacted 

state must coordinate with the 

contributing states to develop 

coordinated emissions management 

strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In 

such cases, the contributing state must 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

SIP all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of the emission reductions needed 

to meet the reasonable progress goals for 

the Class I area. The RPOs have 

provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to address interstate visibility 

issues sufficiently. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their long 

term strategies, including stationary, 

minor, mobile, and area sources. At a 

minimum, states must describe how 

they have taken each of the seven 

factors listed below into account in 

developing their long term strategies. 

The seven factors are: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal; (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 long term strategy. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

RAVI 

As part of the regional haze rule, EPA 

revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), regarding the 

long term strategy for RAVI, to require 

that the RAVI plan must provide for a 

periodic review and SIP revision not 

less frequently than every three years 

until the date of submission of the 

state’s first plan addressing regional 

haze visibility impairment in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). The state must revise its plan to 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated long term strategy for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze on 

or before this date. It must also submit 

the first such coordinated long term 

strategy with its first regional haze SIP. 

Future coordinated long term strategies, 

and periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards reasonable progress 

goals, 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 long term strategy must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision and 

report on both regional haze and RAVI 

impairment. 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The regional haze rule at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) includes the requirement 

for a monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network, 

meaning that the state reviews and uses 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether reasonable progress 

goals will be met. The monitoring 

strategy is due with the first regional 

haze SIP and it must be reviewed every 

five years. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within that state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible in 

electronic format; 

• A statewide inventory of emissions 

of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The inventory must include emissions 

for a baseline year, emissions for the 

most recent year with available data, 

and future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility. 

The regional haze rule at 40 CFR 

51.308(f) requires that states submit 

control strategies to cover an initial 

implementation period extending to the 

year 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision addressing 

the core requirements of section 

51.308(d) (not including BART) every 

10 years thereafter. 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). Periodic SIP revisions 

will assure that the statutory 

requirement of reasonable progress will 

continue to be met. 

G. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The regional haze rule requires that 

states consult with Federal Land 

Managers (FLMs) before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the reasonable progress goals 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 

Michigan’s regional haze plan? 

Michigan submitted its regional haze 

plan on November 5, 2010, which 

included requested revisions to the 

Michigan SIP to address regional haze. 

A. Class I Areas 

States are required to address regional 

haze affecting Class I areas within a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46917 

state and in Class I areas outside the 

state that may be affected by that state’s 

emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Michigan 

has two Class I areas, Isle Royal 

National Park and the Seney Wilderness 

Area, within the state. Michigan is 

responsible for developing a regional 

haze plan that addresses these Class I 

areas and for consulting with states that 

affect its areas as well as for addressing 

its impact on Class I areas in other 

states. 

Michigan reviewed technical analyses 

conducted by MRPO and other RPOs to 

determine what Class I areas outside the 

state are affected by Michigan emission 

sources. MRPO conducted both a back 

trajectory analysis and modeling to 

determine the effects of its states’ 

emissions. Michigan also used 

assessments by MANE–VU, the regional 

planning organization for Northeastern 

and Mid-Atlantic states. The conclusion 

from these technical analyses is that 

Michigan emissions affect five Class I 

areas outside Michigan. These affected 

Class I areas are: Acadia National Park 

and Moosehorn Wilderness Area in 

Maine; Great Gulf Wilderness Area in 

New Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness 

Area in New Jersey; and the Lye Brook 

Wilderness Area in Vermont. Michigan 

has thereby satisfied the requirement to 

identify the Class I areas it affects. 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

The regional haze rule requires Class 

I states to determine the baseline, 

current, and natural conditions for their 

Class I areas. This information defines 

the rate of visibility improvement that 

would represent linear progress toward 

elimination of anthropogenic visibility 

impairment by 2064, also known as the 

uniform rate of progress, and helps the 

states define their reasonable progress 

goals. 

Natural background visibility is 

estimated by calculating the expected 

light extinction using estimates of 

natural concentrations of pollutants 

adjusted by an estimate of humidity. 

EPA allows states to use either an 

original IMPROVE algorithm or a 

refined IMPROVE algorithm. Michigan 

used the refined IMPROVE algorithm. 

Data from 2000 to 2004 were used to 

calculate the impairment on the 20 

percent best and 20 percent worst 

visibility days at Isle Royale National 

Park and Seney Wilderness Area. The 

goal of the regional haze program is to 

achieve natural conditions by 2064. 

Table 1 shows the baseline conditions 

and natural conditions that Michigan 

determined for both Isle Royale and 

Seney for both the 20 percent most 

impaired days and the 20 percent least 

impaired days, as well as showing the 

calculation of the visibility that would 

be achieved by 2018 under the scenario 

of achieving the targeted uniform rate of 

progress. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE, NATURAL, AND LINEAR PROGRESS VISIBILITY VALUES

20 percent most impaired visibility Isle Royale Seney 

Baseline conditions .................................................................................................................................................. 21.59 dv 23.37 dv. 

Natural conditions .................................................................................................................................................... 12.36 dv 12.65 dv. 

Difference ................................................................................................................................................................. 9.23 dv 11.50 dv. 

Annual difference with linear progress .................................................................................................................... 0.15 dv 0.19 dv. 

2018 value with linear progress .............................................................................................................................. 19.43 dv 21.64 dv. 

20 percent least impaired days 

Baseline conditions .................................................................................................................................................. 6.77 dv 7.14 dv. 

Natural conditions .................................................................................................................................................... 3.72 dv 3.73 dv. 

Michigan does not expect degradation 

of the visibility on 20 percent best days, 

so no calculation is needed as the 2018 

goals match the baseline. EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance states 

that the uniform rate of progress is not 

a presumptive target for the reasonable 

progress goal. Class I states can set the 

reasonable progress goal at the uniform 

rate of progress or it can set the 

reasonable progress goal at greater or 

lesser visibility impairment. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Class I states must set reasonable 

progress goals that achieve reasonable 

progress toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. Michigan 

consulted with Class I states on the 

development of reasonable progress 

goals through its participation in MRPO. 

MRPO facilitated consultations with 

other Midwest states and with states in 

other regions through inter-RPO 

process. By coordinating with the 

MRPO and other RPOs, Michigan has 

worked to ensure that it achieves its fair 

share of overall emission reductions 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals of Class I areas that it 

affects, including Isle Royale and Seney 

Wilderness Area. 

Michigan, the MRPO, and the 

Northern Class I consultation group 

worked together to establish reasonable 

progress goals. These groups first 

identified and prioritized sources that 

contribute to the worst visibility days 

and to establish the relative visibility 

impairment affects. The group 

determined that the priority emission 

sources are SO2 point sources, NOX

from both point and mobiles sources, 

and ammonia from agricultural 

operations. EC/R, Incorporated (ECR), a 

contractor for the MRPO, further 

evaluated these sources on a three-state 

and nine-state basis. Michigan 

identified regional SO2 emissions from 

EGUs as a key contributor to visibility 

impairment for Isle Royale National 

Park and Seney Wilderness Area. 

Michigan’s regional haze plan identified 

the top ten contributing in-state sources 

to visibility impairment at Isle Royale 

and at Seney based on modeling and on 

the ratio of emissions to distance (‘‘Q/ 

d’’). (See Tables 10.3.2.a and 10.3.2.b in 

Michigan’s submittal, addressing Isle 

Royale and Seney, respectively.) 

Michigan also provided list of the top 30 

facilities, including facilities both 

within and outside the state, ranked 

according to their impacts on Isle 

Royale and Seney. (See Tables 10.3.2.c 

and 10.3.2.d in Michigan’s submittal, 

addressing Isle Royale and Seney, 

respectively.) 

The second step of the process was to 

identify control options for the priority 

sources. Michigan, the MRPO, and the 

Northern Class I consultation group 

identified existing control measures 

including CAIR, BART, Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standards, on-road mobile source 

programs, and non-road mobile source 

programs. MRPO examined different 

potential control scenarios, including 

two control levels for EGUs and two 

control levels for industrial, 

commercial, and institutional (ICI) 

boilers. 

The third step of the process was to 

assess the effect of existing control 

programs on priority sources. The 

impact of existing programs is discussed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46918 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

in the ECR report. Table 2, below, 

replicated from Table 10.3.2.e. of 

Michigan’s haze plan, which in turn 

used results from the ECR report, 

indicates results of the four factors for 

already existing controls. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF MICHIGAN’S FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSIS OF ON-THE-BOOKS CONTROLS

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 

Control strategy 

Cost effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Percent emission reductions 

from 2002 baseline in 2018 

Percent emission reductions 

from 2002 baseline at full implementation Energy 

Solid waste 

produced 

(1000 tons/yr) 

Remaining useful life 

CAIR and other cap-trade programs (e.g., acid rain, NOX

SIP call.

$720–$2,600 .............. 3-state SO2: 

NOX: 

9-state SO2: 

NOX: 

13% ...............

75% ...............

34% ...............

79% ...............

3-state SO2: 

NOX: 

9-state SO2: 

NOX: 

47% 

75% 

48% 

80% 

4.5% of total 

energy consumed.

2,383 .............. The IPM model projects that 

53 units will retire by 2018. 

BART: Based on Company 

BART analyses from MN 

and ND for non-EGUs.

$248–$1,770.

Combustion MACTs ................ $1,477–$7,611 ........... 9-state SO2: 

NOX: 

10% ...............

5% .................

9-state SO2: 

NOX: 

10% 

5%.

Highway vehichle programs .... $1,300–$2,300 ........... 3-state NOX: 83% ............... 3-state NOX: 83%.

9-state SO2: 80% ............... 9-state SO2: 80%.

Nonroad mobile sources ......... ($1,000)–$1,000 ........ 3-state NOX: 39% ............... 3-state NOX: 39% ............... 350 MM gallons of fuel 

saved. 

9-state SO2: 27% ............... 9-state SO2: 27%.

Table 3, replicated from Table 10.3.2.f 

of Michigan’s submittal, shows the 

change in deciview predicted from 

already existing controls, including 

CAIR. 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF THE UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS (URP) IN 2018 WITH PROJECTED IMPACTS FOR EXISTING

CONTROLS

Estimated visibility impairment on the 20% worst visibility days 

(deciviews) a

Boundary 

waters Voyageurs Isle Royale Nat’l Park 

Seney 

Wilderness 

Baseline conditions (2000–2004) ................................................................ 19 .86 19.48 21.62 24 .48 

Projected conditions in 2018 with on-the-books controls b .......................... 18 .94 19.18 20.04 22 .38 

Net change .................................................................................................. 0 .92 0.30 1.58 2 .1 

Glide path/URP ............................................................................................ 17 .7 17.56 19.21 21 .35 

aThe baseline condition values reflect the recent adjustments proposed by the Midwest RPO to include several missing days. The adjusted 

values are, on average, less than 0.5 dv greater than those provided on the IMPROVE Web site. bBased on CAMX modeling by the MRPO. These modeling analyses used preliminary estimates of the impacts of BART controls, which are 

generally larger than the impacts estimated in industry BART analyses. 

The fourth step of the process is to 

evaluate which control options may be 

reasonable for priority sources. Again, 

many of the sources were evaluated in 

the ECR report. The northern Class I 

areas Consultation Group further 

considered the MRPO EGU scenario 

with limits on EGU emissions of 0.15 

pounds per million British Thermal 

Units (#/MMBTU) for SO2 and 0.10 #/ 

MMBTU for NOX by 2013 and the ICI 

boiler option with a 40 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions and a 60 

percent reduction in NOX emissions by 

2013. In order to realize significant 

visibility improvement at Michigan’s 

two Class I areas, EGUs are clearly the 

top priority source category for both 

NOX and SO2 control. Since all EGUs 

were subject to CAIR, Michigan 

concluded that no further controls on 

EGUs should be considered reasonable 

for purposes of reasonable progress at 

this time. By separate rulemaking, 

published June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 33642, 

EPA has promulgated a revision to 

Michigan’s plan to include the 

reductions of CSAPR in the state’s long 

term strategy, for reasonable progress as 

well as for BART purposes. 

A number of non-EGU facilities also 

have significant impact on Michigan’s 

two Class I areas, as identified in its 

plan. These facilities are subject to 

BART analysis, and Michigan has 

evaluate them to determine if additional 

controls represent BART. Those ICI 

boilers not addressed by BART may 

eventually be controlled further. 

Michigan, in conjunction with other 

MRPO states and a number of Northeast 

states, evaluated reasonable control 

levels for ICI boilers but concluded that 

regulation of these sources by 

individual states would be relatively 

ineffective in the absence of a regional 

program addressing the emissions of ICI 

boilers across much of the eastern 

United States. However, Michigan’s 

plan takes into account the reductions 

anticipated from other Federal control 

measures such as Tier II mobile source 

standards, heavy-duty diesel engine 

standards, low sulfur fuel, and non-road 

mobile sources control programs. 

The final step of the process to 

determine the reasonable progress goals 

was to compare the control strategies to 

the uniform rate of progress. The 

computation of visibility levels that 

would be achieved by 2018 with linear 

progress toward the goal of no 

anthropogenic visibility impairment by 

2064 is described above. Michigan 

included all control measures believed 

to be reasonable and compared the 

resulting visibility improvement to the 

uniform rate of progress. Michigan set 

the reasonable progress goals for Isle 

Royale at 20.86 dv for the worst 20 

percent of days and 6.76 dv for the best 

20 percent of days in 2018. This annual 

0.05 dv improvement rate would lead to 

achieving natural conditions on the 

worst 20 percent of days by 2181. The 

2018 reasonable progress goal for Isle 

Royale provides less improvement than 

the linear progress benchmark of 19.21 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46919 

dv. Michigan determined that the 

reasonable progress goals for Seney 

Wilderness Area are 23.58 dv for the 

worst 20 percent of days and 7.78 dv for 

the best 20 percent of days in 2018. 

Projecting this 0.06 dv per year 

improvement into the future yields 

Voyageurs reaching natural conditions 

on the worst 20 percent of days in 2209. 

As was the case for Seney Wilderness 

Area, the 2018 reasonable progress goal 

for Voyageurs provides less 

improvement than the linear progress 

benchmark of 21.35 dv. Nevertheless, 

Michigan considers the reasonable 

progress goals to reflect an appropriate 

visibility improvement based on 

implementation of a reasonable set of 

measures. Michigan detailed potential 

controls in Chapter 10 of its regional 

haze plan. 

Michigan consulted with other states 

to determine which other states’ 

emissions contribute to visibility 

impairment in Michigan’s Class I areas. 

The consultation also allowed Michigan 

to determine that in addition to 

contributions from its own sources, 

emissions from sources in Wisconsin, 

Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and North 

Dakota contribute to visibility 

impairment at Michigan’s Class I areas, 

Isle Royale National Park and Seney 

Wilderness Area. Michigan identified 

the contributing states from MRPO’s 

2018 modeling-based source 

apportionment analysis. Other analyses 

from CENRAP and MRPO support the 

contribution determination. The 

pollutants and sources affecting Isle 

Royale National Park and Seney 

Wilderness Area are detailed in Chapter 

10 of the Michigan’s regional haze plan. 

Michigan consulted with the FLMs 

during the development of its regional 

haze plan. Michigan sent several drafts 

of its regional haze SIP for comments to 

the FLMs between 2007 and May 2010, 

prior to the public hearing held on June 

29, 2010. In response to this solicitation, 

Michigan received comments from the 

FLMs and from EPA Region 5. A 

summary of the comments and 

Michigan’s responses are included in 

Appendix 2A of its submittal. Michigan 

has committed to continue to consult 

with the FLMs as it develops future SIP 

revisions and progress reports. 

Michigan participated in meetings 

and conference calls with affected Class 

I states and RPOs. Michigan consulted 

with Minnesota on their Class I areas. 

Michigan also participated in MRPO’s 

inter-RPO consultations and MANE– 

VU. MANE–VU, the RPO for the 

northeastern states, facilitated 

consultation between Michigan and 

Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

and Vermont. 

Michigan also participated in the 

northern Class I area consultation 

process as part of the process to 

establish a long term strategy for 

regional haze. This consultation process 

included the states of Michigan, 

Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, 

Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri 

and representatives from other 

governments, such as the Ontario 

Ministry of Environment and tribes 

including the Leech Lake Band of 

Ojibwe, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa, Grand Portage Band of 

Chippewa, Upper/Lower Sioux, and 

Huron Potawatomi. The consultation 

process also included representatives 

from federal agencies, such as the U.S. 

Department of the Interior National Park 

Service and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, as well as 

representatives from the EPA. 

Michigan included the MRPO 

regional haze technical support 

document (TSD) in its submission. In 

Section 5 of the TSD, MRPO assessed 

the reasonable progress using the four 

factors required by 40 CFR 51.308(d) the 

regional haze rule, specifically, the cost 

of compliance, time needed for 

compliance, energy and non-air 

impacts, and remaining useful life. 

In analyzing the visibility benefits of 

existing programs, MRPO considered 

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

power plant, and other point source 

programs. MRPO also included 

reductions from the since vacated CAIR 

in its analysis. Following the court 

vacatur of CAIR, MRPO performed an 

additional analysis intended to project 

air quality in the absence of CAIR. 

MRPO projected visibility in 2018 under 

three scenarios in this analysis. The first 

scenario reflected simple emissions 

growth from a baseline that reflects 

power plant emissions in 2007, prior to 

most of the emission controls pursuant 

to CAIR being installed. The second 

scenario added reductions for power 

plants controls that are enforceable 

under federal or state consent decrees, 

permits, or rules. The final scenario also 

added power plant controls that the 

utilities anticipated installing, 

presumably under the expectation that 

EPA would issue a rule to replace CAIR, 

plus power plant controls representing 

BART where applicable. 

Michigan believes that 

implementation of the existing control 

measures listed in section 10 of its 

regional haze plan is expected to 

provide its fair share of emission 

reductions that should allow affected 

Class I areas to meet the reasonable 

progress goals. However, CAIR is one of 

the existing control measures and the 

MRPO analysis shows emission 

reductions equivalent to the scale of 

CAIR are needed to meet reasonable 

progress goals. On the other hand, EPA 

rulemaking published June 7, 2012, at 

77 FR 33642, EPA promulgated 

provisions incorporating CSAPR into 

Michigan’s SIP. EPA believes that with 

CSAPR providing the reductions that 

Michigan expects to obtain from CAIR, 

Michigan’s long term strategy can in fact 

be expected to achieve the state-adopted 

reasonable progress goals that Michigan 

established. Furthermore, EPA proposes 

to agree with Michigan’s conclusion, 

based on a review of the four factors, 

that the state’s plan includes a 

reasonable set of measures that provide 

its appropriate share of reductions 

toward achieving reasonable progress 

goals. 

D. BART 

Michigan developed rules that 

describe the process for determining 

BART and the applicability provisions. 

See Appendix 9A of regional haze plan. 

Michigan conducted a BART analysis 

using the criteria in the BART Guidance 

at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 40 CFR 51 

appendix Y to identify all of the BARTeligible sources, assess whether the 

BART-eligible sources are subject to 

BART and determine the BART 

controls. These criteria to determine 

BART eligibility are: (1) The emissions 

unit fits within one of the 26 categories 

listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the 

emissions unit was in existence prior to 

August 7, 1962, but was not in operation 

before August 7, 1962; and (3) the total 

potential emissions of any visibilityimpairing pollutant from the subject 

units at a stationary source are 250 tons 

or more per year. 

Michigan relied on CAIR to satisfy 

BART requirements for EGUs for SO2

and NOX. Furthermore, a modeling 

analysis demonstrated that particulate 

matter impacts from EGUs at Class I 

areas were insignificant and did not 

warrant further control. Therefore, 

Michigan’s assessment of sources 

subject to BART focused on non-EGUs. 

Using available source emissions and 

construction date information, Michigan 

identified 35 non-EGU facilities that 

were potentially subject to BART. 

Michigan worked with MRPO to 

perform source-specific analyses with 

CALPUFF model to determine the 

sources subject to BART. MRPO 

conferred with its states, EPA, and the 

FLMs in developing its BART modeling 

protocol. Consistent with EPA guidance, 

the state used a 0.5 dv impact (98th 

percentile) as the threshold for a source 

to contribute to visibility impairment, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46920 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

concluding that such a threshold 

provided an appropriate means of 

identifying which sources cause 

sufficient visibility impairment to 

warrant being subject to BART. By this 

means, Michigan identified the 

following six non-EGU sources subject 

to BART: Lafarge Midwest, Inc.; Smurfit 

Stone Container Corp.; St. Mary’s 

Cement; New Page Paper; Tilden Mining 

Co.; and Empire Mining Company. More 

detail on Michigan’s BART 

determinations is provided in appendix 

9 of Michigan’s regional haze plan. 

Subsequent to Michigan’s 

identification of sources subject to 

BART requirements, Empire Mining 

provided new information that it had 

permanently shut down one furnace. 

With the resulting lower emissions, 

modeling for Empire Mining showed 

that the facility does not exceed the 0.5 

dv threshold BART level. Therefore, 

Michigan concluded that this facility is 

no longer subject to BART. 

EPA’s review of Michigan’s analysis 

concluded that Michigan applied 

appropriate analyses based on 

appropriate criteria for identifying 

sources subject to BART. 

The five non-EGU BART-eligible 

sources include two Portland cement 

plants, one taconite plant, and two 

paper products plants. Table 9.2.d of 

Michigan’s regional haze plan includes 

a summary of the BART analysis 

submitted by the sources and 

Michigan’s evaluation of potential 

BART options and proposed BART 

control strategies. More detailed 

information of BART controls and 

analysis submitted by the sources can be 

found in appendices 9C through 9J of 

Michigan’s plan. The following 

discussion reviews Michigan’s proposed 

BART determinations for these five 

sources. 

(1) Lafarge Midwest, Inc. 

Lafarge Midwest, Inc. is a cement 

plant located in Alpena, Michigan. The 

BART subject emission units include 

five Portland cement manufacturing 

kilns: EU–KILN 19, EU–KILN 20, and 

EU–KILN 21 are part of Kiln Group 5 

(KG 5); EU–KILN 22 and EU–KILN 23 

are part of Kiln Group 6 (KG 6). 

On March 18, 2010, Lafarge entered 

into a Global Settlement/Consent Decree 

(hereinafter Consent Decree) with the 

EPA and Michigan to reduce NOX and 

SO2 emissions at the Alpena facility 

along with other Lafarge facilities in the 

United States. 

The emission controls required by the 

Consent Decree include selective 

noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) for Kiln 

Groups KG 5 and KG 6 for NOX control. 

For SO2 control, wet scrubbers for kiln 

group KG 6 and a Dry Absorption 

Addition system for Kiln Group KG 5 

are required. These controls are 

consistent with the BART Guidelines to 

control visibility impairing pollutants 

(NOX and SO2) emissions. An additional 

control not included in the BART 

analysis but agreed to in the Consent 

Decree is the Dry Absorption Addition 

system for SO2 controls on KG 5. 

Michigan includes all controls 

contained in the Consent Decree, 

including the Dry Absorption Addition 

system, as part of the BART controls. 

The Lafarge Alpena facility will 

reduce NOX and SO2 according to the 

schedule and conditions given in the 

Consent Decree (see Appendix 9D). 

Beginning January 1, 2011, Lafarge was 

required to maintain an interim, facilitywide, 12-month rolling tonnage limit for 

NOX of 8,650 tons per year and SO2 at 

13,100 tons per year. The final emission 

limits will be established according to 

the Consent Decree ‘‘Control 

Technology Demonstration 

Requirements,’’ as given in the 

Appendix of the Consent Decree. The 

control technology demonstration 

describes in detail a stepwise emission 

control optimization program to 

establish the 30-day rolling average 

emission limits for NOX and SO2 at 

individual affected kilns. Additional 

requirements include a demonstration 

phase, facility-wide, 12-month rolling 

average NOX emission limit of 4.89 

pounds of NOX per ton of clinker and 

an SO2 emission limit of 3.68 pounds of 

SO2 per ton of clinker. The 

demonstration phase limit will be 

followed by a period of testing of 

control efficiency and subsequently 

establish a 30-day rolling average limit 

for both NOX and SO2 to be calculated 

at the end of each 24-hour period. 

In accordance with Regional Haze 

Rule, BART for PM emission was 

determined to be equivalent to the 

Portland Cement MACT, which 

regulates PM as a surrogate for 

hazardous air pollutants. Lafarge has 

emission controls (baghouses) in place 

to control hazardous air pollutants and 

thereby meets both the MACT 

requirements and the BART 

requirement for PM. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

requirements established in the Consent 

Decree, requiring reductions in NOX and 

SO2 emissions at the Lafarge Midwest, 

Inc. facility located in Alpena, as 

satisfying BART requirements for these 

pollutants. In addition, EPA is satisfied 

that the PM MACT represents BART for 

PM, and approves a PM limit of 0.03 

pounds per ton of dry feed as BART at 

kilns in KG5 and KG6. 

(2) Smurfit Stone Container Corporation 

(SSCC) 

SSCC was a paper products plant 

located in Ontonagon, Michigan. The 

only BART subject emission unit at the 

facility was the Riley Boiler #1 (EUBR 

1). 

Subsequent to Michigan’s 

determination of BART for this facility, 

the facility has been demolished. Any 

effort to reconstruct this facility would 

require a new source permit. Therefore, 

this facility cannot restart operation 

without implementing BART. 

Consequently, it is now moot whether 

Michigan’s BART determination for this 

facility would have satisfied the BART 

requirement. 

(3) St. Mary’s Cement 

St. Mary’s Cement operates a Portland 

cement kiln and associated material 

handling equipment in Charlevoix, 

Michigan. In addition to operating an 

on-site quarry and stone crushing 

operation, the company operates a kiln 

system that includes a pre-heater and 

pre-calciner. In 2006, the company 

installed an indirect firing system to 

reduce fuel requirements and to reduce 

emissions of NOX and SO2. 

A consultant prepared and submitted 

to Michigan a report analyzing several 

control alternatives for this facility. 

Based on its review of this report, 

provided in Appendix 9E of its 

submittal to EPA, Michigan concluded 

that BART reflected no further control 

of this facility. Moreover, Michigan 

concluded that existing limits suffice to 

require this level of control. 

As discussed above, a full analysis of 

BART involves evaluation of five 

factors. These factors include: (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. 

EPA has identified several 

deficiencies in the evaluation of BART 

for St. Mary’s Cement in Michigan’s 

plan, most notably with respect to the 

evaluation of the costs and benefits of 

installing equipment for SNCR. These 

deficiencies include: 

—Use of a 10-year projection of 

equipment life, rather than 15 or 20 

years, resulting in overly rapid 

amortization of the cost of control 

equipment; 

—Inclusion of costs associated with 

production losses from system 

clogging that the company expects to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46921 

result from introduction of urea, 

based on a presumption that the 

company will fail to solve this 

problem; 

—Underestimation of the emission 

reductions that can be expected from 

an improved SNCR; 

—Overestimation of the costs of urea; 

and 

—Overestimation of the costs of 

electricity. 

These issues are discussed in greater 

length in a May 24, 2012 letter from 

Douglas Aburano, Chief of the 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section of EPA Region 5, to Vincent 

Hellwig, Chief of the Air Quality 

Control Division of the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

The following table summarizes values 

that the consultant for St. Mary’s 

Cement used in its cost-benefit analysis 

and the corresponding values that EPA 

used to assess whether SNCR is likely 

to be cost-effective at this facility. 

TABLE 4—PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATING COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF SNCR AT ST. MARY’S CEMENT-CHARLEVOIX

Parameter Consultant value EPA value Comments 

Clean-out costs ....... $968,000/yr. lost production ................. Capital: $685,815 .................................

Labor/materials $19,458 

EPA estimates 50% more capital, 

twice labor/materials. 

Urea ........................ $1,440,000 ........................................... $458,167 .............................................. Assumes 0.31 moles urea/mole NOX, 

$450/ton urea. 

Capital amortization 10-year life, 7% interest (0.14) ............ 15–20 year life, 7% interest (0.11 to 

0.0944) .* 

Overhead ................ $883,264 (60% of material, labor) ....... $0 ......................................................... EPA’s Control Cost Manual finds overhead minimal. 

Emission Reduction 524 tons/year (10% of baseline) .......... 1259 tons/year (50% of 2006 to 2008 

emissions). 

Electricity ................. $45,990 (100kW for 6570 hrs/yr) ......... $28,000 (Average of 100 kW for 4000 

hrs/yr). 

Maintenance (Labor, 

materials).

$17,512 ................................................ $35,540 ................................................ EPA assumes twice normal maintenance. 

* Letter to Michigan estimated cost effectiveness based on 15-year life of control equipment, but EPA believes that amortization over 15 to 20 

years is appropriate. 

In summary, the consultant for St. 

Mary’s Cement assigned very high costs 

for lost production resulting from 

material buildup, very high costs for 

overhead, and low efficiency of NOX

emission control. The consultant 

estimated that the annualized cost of 

NOX emission reduction would be 

$7,568 per ton. Based on the revised 

cost parameters summarized above, EPA 

finds that the annualized cost per ton of 

NOX emission reduction is likely to be 

between $920 and $980. (This range 

reflects a range of estimates of 

equipment life, amortizing the capital 

expense over between 15 and 20 years.) 

Much of the consultant’s discussion 

of SNCR that is included in Michigan’s 

plan asserts that use of SNCR at this 

facility would cause buildup of 

ammonium bisulfite scale and would 

cause various expenses that would make 

operation of SNCR overly expensive. 

Most notably, the consultant asserts that 

use of SNCR would result in material 

buildup that would require periodic 

cleaning necessitating kiln downtime 

and lost production. The consultant also 

observes that ‘‘air cannons’’ currently in 

use to remove buildup could be 

supplemented, at considerable expense, 

but the consultant asserts that this 

approach would likely have limited 

effectiveness in reducing the need for 

full kiln shutdowns for cleaning 

purposes. 

EPA addressed these concerns in its 

May 24, 2012, letter to Michigan. EPA 

noted that ‘‘SNCR has been successfully 

demonstrated at many cement plants 

across the country, which suggests that 

solutions to this problem are readily 

available.’’ EPA listed some of the 

options for addressing this problem, 

including redesign for improved 

airflow, use of enhanced pneumatic 

cleaning or other cleaning approaches, 

and use of more concentrated urea (with 

less water content), and concluded that 

the success in operating SNCR at other 

plants indicates that SNCR can be 

successfully be operated at reasonable 

cost at this plant. Indeed, EPA’s review 

finds that SNCR can be installed and 

operated at reasonable cost even if one 

assumes additional expense in 

installation and operation for addressing 

material buildup issues beyond the 

expenses currently incurred by the 

company addressing these issues. 

EPA has reassessed the above five 

factors for evaluating whether SNCR 

constitutes BART for the St. Mary’s 

Cement Charlevoix facility. EPA finds 

that the facility can install and operate 

SNCR at reasonable cost. No energy or 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

influence this choice of control options. 

The design of the kiln system, which 

includes an indirect firing system that 

reduces the NOX emissions from the 

kiln, would be well complemented by 

installation and operation of SNCR. The 

facility is expected to have sufficient 

remaining useful life to assume that the 

cost of installing SNCR may be 

amortized over 15 to 20 years. While the 

Michigan plan does not estimate the 

visibility improvement that would 

result from installation and operation of 

SNCR, the plan estimates the overall 

impact of the plant is 3.8 dv, from 

which EPA conservatively estimates 

that SNCR would improve visibility by 

at least 0.4 dv. (This estimate reflects an 

assumption that half of the overall plant 

impact is due to NOX emissions. This 

estimate also reflects an assumption that 

baseline NOX emissions used in 

estimating the plant’s impact were 5,741 

tons per year, though the report in 

Michigan’s SIP also suggests that the 

impact analysis may reflect a 

substantially lower NOX emission rate, 

which would indicate that the benefits 

of SNCR would be much greater.) 

EPA also reviewed the determination 

of BART for this facility with respect to 

SO2. Based on CEMS data for 2006 to 

2008, the average SO2 emission rate at 

this facility is 3.02 pounds per ton of 

clinker. The Michigan SIP does not 

clearly limit SO2 emissions from this 

facility, though a construction permit 

limits annual emissions to 4,404 tons 

per year and 550 tons per 30 days, 

which, at 2006 to 2008 average 

production rates are equivalent to 7.9 

pounds and 12.0 pounds of SO2 per ton 

of clinker, respectively. The company 

states that a lower emission limit should 

not be considered BART because the 

BART limits should accommodate 

higher sulfur-bearing raw materials in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46922 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the company’s quarry than are presently 

being used. 

Michigan’s plan includes a 

consultant’s analysis of both wet and 

dry flue gas desulfurization. This 

analysis fails to annualize equipment 

costs, and instead computes cost 

effectiveness by adding the entire 

capital costs for equipment and 

installation plus the costs of one year’s 

operation, then dividing by one year’s 

emission reduction. Using the 

consultant’s cost estimates but 

amortizing the capital costs over a 20- 

year period (assuming an interest rate of 

7 percent) suggests costs per ton of 

$3,500 for dry flue gas desulfurization 

and $4,500 per ton for wet flue gas 

desulfurization. 

EPA proposes to find that no 

additional control equipment 

constitutes BART for SO2 under current 

conditions. However, if the company, as 

it contemplates, uses raw materials with 

higher sulfur content, then the costbenefit ratio for control would improve, 

potentially to the point where 

installation of emission control 

equipment is warranted. 

Based on review of these factors, EPA 

concludes that BART at St. Mary’s 

Cement’s Charlevoix facility includes 

installation and operation of SNCR and 

a more stringent tighter limit on 

emissions of SO2. EPA concludes as a 

result that Michigan’s plan fails to 

require BART at this facility. Therefore, 

EPA proposes to disapprove Michigan’s 

plan with respect to BART. 

In a notice published January 15, 

2009, at 74 FR 2392, EPA notified 

Michigan of a failure to submit a timely 

plan for regional haze. Consequently, 

under Clean Air Act section 110(c), in 

the absence of a state plan meeting 

pertinent requirements, EPA is to 

promulgate FIP provisions meeting the 

requirements. EPA is proposing Federal 

limits in this action to address the 

BART requirement for St. Mary’s 

Cement’s Charlevoix facility. These 

limits are discussed in a subsequent 

section of this preamble. 

(4) NewPage Paper 

NewPage Paper owns and operates a 

paper mill in Escanaba, Michigan, a 

facility that is permitted by the State as 

Escanaba Paper. The largest boiler at the 

facility was not constructed during the 

time period for BART eligibility, but 

several other boilers and other 

operations at the plant are subject to the 

requirement for BART. Michigan’s plan 

includes a review prepared by the 

company’s consultant that concluded 

that existing controls constitute BART 

and that existing limits suffice to require 

these controls. 

EPA’s review focused on the largest of 

these sources, namely Boiler 8 and 

Boiler 9. Boiler 8 has historically been 

fired with both natural gas and residual 

oil, but in the past few years the boiler 

has only used natural gas. Boiler 9 is a 

stoker boiler that predominantly fires 

wood bark generated at the plant. Since 

the fuels firing these boilers have 

minimal sulfur content, the SO2

emissions from these boilers are 

insignificant. State rules limit the NOX

emissions of boiler 8 during the ozone 

season (defined as May 1 to September 

30), with a limit of 0.2 #/MMBTU when 

firing gas and 0.40 #/MMBTU when 

firing residual oil. However, these rules 

are not part of the Michigan SIP, and 

Michigan did not submit these rules as 

part of its regional haze plan submittal. 

Boiler 8 has no state or Federal NOX

emission limits for the rest of the year, 

and Boiler 9, being predominantly 

wood-fired, has no state or Federal NOX

emission limits at any time. 

The emission profiles of these two 

boilers have changed significantly since 

2002. Boiler 8, besides becoming 

predominantly fired with natural gas, 

has been used much less in recent years 

than in prior years, which, in 

combination with a modest reduction in 

emissions per million BTU, resulted in 

the boiler’s NOX emissions declining 

from an average of 135 tons per year in 

2002 to 2004 to an average of 40 tons 

per year in 2010 to 2011. Boiler 9 had 

relatively steady usage throughout this 

period, but modifications to the boiler’s 

overfire air system in 2006 resulted in 

the boiler’s NOX emissions declining 

from a 2002 to 2004 average of 836 tons 

per year to a 2010 to 2011 average of 250 

tons per year. 

EPA identified several concerns with 

the Michigan submittal’s analysis of 

costs and benefits of emission controls 

at these two boilers. The submittal, 

reflecting the analysis by the company’s 

contractor, appears to overestimate 

likely costs of installing controls, fails to 

evaluate design changes such as the 

improved overfire air design 

implemented at Boiler 9, and assumes 

overly short control equipment life 

(thereby amortizing control costs over 

an inappropriately short period). 

More importantly, as noted above, 

Michigan’s plan includes no limits on 

emissions from these two boilers; 

indeed, the plan does not even include 

the limits in state rules that apply to 

Boiler 8 during the ozone season. 

Therefore, notwithstanding the emission 

reductions that have occurred at the key 

BART units at NewPage Paper’s 

Escanaba facility, Michigan’s plan does 

not include any limits that mandate any 

reductions at these boilers. Therefore, 

EPA believes that Michigan’s plan fails 

to require BART for these two boilers. 

Michigan identified several other 

units at NewPage Paper that are subject 

to a requirement for BART, including 

the Number 10 recovery furnace, a lime 

kiln, and the smelt dissolving tank. EPA 

concurs with Michigan’s conclusion 

that these other units do not require 

limits to require BART controls. 

However, EPA finds that Michigan has 

failed to require BART for the facility 

because the state has failed to submit 

limits requiring appropriate control for 

Boilers 8 and 9. 

As discussed above for St. Mary’s 

Cement, EPA is obligated here to 

promulgate FIP provisions in cases 

where state plan provisions are 

inadequate. FIP provisions mandating 

BART for NewPage Paper’s Escanaba 

facility are discussed in a subsequent 

section of this preamble. 

(5) Tilden Mining 

EPA is reviewing Michigan’s BART 

determination for Tilden mining in 

conjunction with a review of BART for 

other taconite plants in Minnesota. By 

this means, EPA intends to ensure that 

the Tilden Mining taconite plant and 

similar facilities in Minnesota are 

subject to similar requirements. This 

review is being addressed in a separate 

rulemaking action that EPA plans to 

conduct on the same timetable as this 

Michigan rulemaking. 

E. Long Term Strategy 

Under section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean 

Air Act and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states’ 

regional haze programs must include a 

long term strategy for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting the national 

visibility goal. Michigan’s long term 

strategy must address visibility 

improvement for the Class I areas in and 

out of Michigan that are affected by 

Michigan sources. Section 51.308(d)(3) 

requires that Michigan consult with the 

affected states in order to develop a 

coordinated emission management 

strategy. Michigan must demonstrate 

that its plan includes all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emissions reductions needed to meet 

the reasonable progress goals for the 

Class I areas affected by Michigan 

sources. As described in section III.D of 

this proposal, the long term strategy is 

the compilation of all control measures 

Michigan will use to meet applicable 

reasonable progress goals. The long term 

strategy must include enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals for all Class I areas 

affected by Michigan emissions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46923 

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

regional haze rule identifies seven 

factors that a state must consider in 

developing its long term strategy: (A) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, (B) 

measures to mitigate impacts from 

construction, (C) emission limits and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goal, (D) 

replacement and retirement of sources, 

(E) smoke management techniques, (F) 

federally enforceable emission limits 

and control measures, and (G) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected emission changes over the 

long term strategy period. 

Michigan relied on MRPO’s modeling 

and analysis along with its emission 

information in developing a long term 

strategy. Michigan consulted with Class 

I states through its participation in 

MRPO. MRPO facilitated consultations 

with other midwest states and with 

states in other regions through interRPO processes. Michigan considered the 

factors set out in 51.308(d)(3)(v) in 

developing its long term strategy. Based 

on these factors and the MRPO’s 

technical analysis, in conjunction with 

reasonable progress goals that were set 

by the pertinent states in consultation 

with Michigan and other states, 

Michigan concludes that existing 

control programs adequately address 

Michigan’s impact on Class I areas and 

suffice to meet their reasonable progress 

goals by 2018 by implementing the 

control programs already in place. 

These existing control programs include 

federal motor vehicle emission control 

program, reformulated gasoline, 

emission limits for area sources of 

VOCs, Title IV, the NOX SIP Call, MACT 

requirements, and Federal non-road 

standards for construction equipment 

and vehicles. These programs are fully 

enforceable, provide for the mitigation 

of new source impacts through new 

source permitting programs, and reflect 

appropriate consideration of current 

programs and prospective changes in 

emissions. 

As noted in a separate EPA rule (June 

7, 2012, at 77 FR 33642), a number of 

states, including Michigan, fully 

consistent with EPA’s regulations at the 

time, relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a long term 

strategy sufficient to achieve the stateadopted reasonable progress goals. In 

that rulemaking, we promulgated a 

limited disapproval of Michigan’s long 

term strategy based on its reliance on 

CAIR, and promulgated a FIP to replace 

reliance on CAIR requirements with 

reliance on the trading programs of 

CSAPR to satisfy BART requirements for 

NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs in 

various states including Michigan. We 

are now proposing to find that the 

remaining elements of Michigan’s long 

term strategy, amended further to 

include the BART limitations that EPA 

is proposing for St. Mary’s Cement and 

for NewPage Paper in this action, meet 

the requirements of the regional haze 

rule. 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

Michigan’s monitoring strategy relies 

on participation in the IMPROVE 

network. There is an IMPROVE Protocol 

monitoring site in Quaker City, 

Michigan. Michigan also runs a network 

of criteria pollutant monitors that 

provides data to analyze air quality 

problems including regional haze. Class 

I states like Michigan are required under 

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

for using the monitoring data to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to affected Class I 

areas. Michigan developed procedures 

in conjunction with the MRPO. The 

procedures are detailed in the MRPO 

TSD. EPA finds that Michigan’s regional 

haze plan meets the monitoring 

requirements for the regional haze rule 

and that Michigan’s network of 

monitoring sites is satisfactory to 

measure air quality and assess its 

contribution to regional haze. 

G. Comments 

Michigan provided a public comment 

period on its proposed regional haze 

plan. It held a public hearing on June 

29, 2010, which concluded the public 

comment period. Michigan received 

comments from the FLMs as part of the 

consultation process as well as from 

EPA. Michigan submitted evidence of 

the public notice and public hearing to 

EPA. 

Michigan provided the comments it 

received and its responses in a 

document within its regional haze plan. 

Michigan revised portions of its 

proposed plan in response to comments. 

Michigan has satisfied the requirements 

from 40 CFR 51 appendix V by 

providing evidence that it gave public 

notice, took comments, and that it 

compiled and responded to comments. 

V. What are EPA’s proposed BART 

determinations? 

As noted above, in absence of a state 

submittal that satisfies BART 

requirements for St. Mary’s Cement’s 

Charlevoix facility and for NewPage 

Paper’s Escanaba facility, EPA is under 

obligation to promulgate Federal 

provisions satisfying these 

requirements. The following discussion 

evaluates appropriate limits to satisfy 

the BART requirement for these 

facilities. As noted above, EPA is 

addressing Tilden Mining’s facility near 

Ishpeming in a separate rulemaking. 

A. St. Mary’s Cement 

As discussed in section IV.E., EPA 

proposes to find that SNCR represents 

BART on the kiln at St. Mary’s Cement’s 

Charlevoix facility. The following 

discussion describes EPA’s assessment 

of the appropriate emission limit for 

mandating BART-level control at this 

facility. 

The most relevant information 

concerning potential effectiveness of 

SNCR at this facility is from testing at 

St. Mary’s Cement’s facility in Dixon, 

Illinois. A set of tests, lasting 1 to 3 days 

each, injected urea at a rate equal to a 

stoichiometric ratio of 0.6 of the rate of 

uncontrolled NOX emissions. (That is, 

the ratio of the moles of ammonia 

produced by the injected urea to the 

moles of uncontrolled NOX emissions 

was 0.6.) These tests showed an average 

of 46 percent NOX emission reduction. 

Shorter term tests at the Dixon facility 

showed that injection of urea at a 

stoichiometric ratio of 1.2 achieved an 

average of 83 percent reduction in NOX

emissions. 

Several other reviews have also found 

SNCR to be effective at controlling NOX

emissions from cement kilns, commonly 

achieving 50 percent NOX control. EPA 

has conducted a recent review of 

options for controlling emissions for 

Portland cement plants, in developing 

new source performance standards for 

these facilities. EPA proposed these new 

source performance standards on June 

16, 2008, at 73 FR 34072, and published 

final standards on September 9, 2010, at 

75 FR 54970. These standards included 

a new standard for NOX emissions, set 

at 1.5 pounds per ton of clinker on a 30- 

day average basis. 

Other reviews similar to EPA’s review 

for its new source performance 

standards have also found SNCR to be 

an effective means of controlling NOX

emissions from existing cement kilns. 

EPA made similar findings in an earlier 

review, given in a report published in 

2000 entitled, ‘‘NOX Control 

Technologies in the Cement Industry: 

Final Report’’ (EPA–457/R–00–002, 

September 2000, available at http:// 

_www.epa.gov/_ttnnaaqs/_ozone/ 

ctg_act/200009_nox_epa457_r-00-

002_cement_industry.pdf). Although 

application of NOX control technology 

was relatively rare in the United States 

at the time (i.e., before the NOX SIP Call 

required control), EPA found SNCR to 

be an effective means of reducing NOX

emissions, commonly achieving 50 

percent or more reduction. Regional 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46924 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

planning organizations evaluating 

options for BART also made similar 

findings. (See, for example, 

‘‘Identification and Evaluation of 

Candidate Control Measures—Phase II 

Final Report,’’ June 2006, available at 

http://www.ladco.org/reports/control/

final_reports/identification_and_

evaluation_of_candidate_control

_measures_ii_june_2006.pdf.) 

EPA determined baseline emissions at 

St. Mary’s Cement from continuous 

emission monitoring data for 2006 to 

2008 reported by the company. These 

data indicated that NOX emissions from 

the kiln average 4.52 pounds per ton of 

clinker. This is quite similar to the 

representative emission factors for 

similar Portland cement manufacturing 

facilities given in the EPA emission 

factor guidance document known as 

AP–42, which is 4.2 pounds of NOX per 

ton of clinker for preheater/precalciner 

kilns and 4.8 pounds of NOX per ton of 

clinker for preheater process kilns. The 

St. Mary’s Cement data for 2006 to 2008 

also indicate that the 95th percentile 

value among 30-day average NOX

emission rates was 5.78 pounds per ton 

of clinker. For SO2, the St. Mary’s 

Cement data indicate an average 

emission rate of 3.02 pounds per ton of 

clinker, and the 95th percentile value 

among 30-day averages was 7.19 pounds 

per ton of clinker. 

EPA believes that the most 

appropriate form for a limit on 

emissions from St. Mary’s Cement is a 

30-day rolling average of emissions per 

ton of clinker. This reflects the form of 

the standard used in the new source 

performance standards for Portland 

cement kilns. 

EPA believes that the appropriate 

limit for NOX emissions from the kiln at 

St. Mary’s Cement would reflect a 50 

percent reduction from the average 

emissions. Thus, rounding to two 

significant figures, EPA proposes to 

establish a limit on NOX emissions from 

the St. Mary’s Cement kiln at 2.30 

pounds per ton of clinker, set as a 30- 

day rolling average. According to 2006 

to 2008 data from the facility, this limit 

would require slightly under 60 percent 

control from St. Mary’s Cement’s 95th 

percentile 30-day average emission rate, 

which the evidence from tests at St. 

Mary’s Cement’s Dixon facility indicates 

is readily achievable, particularly since 

a limit of 2.30 pounds per ton of clinker 

would only occasionally require this 

level of control. 

EPA is also proposing to establish a 

limit on SO2 emissions per ton of 

clinker. The purpose of this limit is not 

to require emission controls to achieve 

emissions below current levels. Instead, 

EPA intends this limit to assure that 

emissions do not increase significantly 

above current levels. While EPA has 

concluded that installation and 

operation of SO2 emission control 

equipment is not cost effective at 

current SO2 emission rates, such control 

equipment would be cost effective at 

higher SO2 emission rates. That is, EPA 

is proposing to establish a limit 

reflecting its view that BART reflects no 

further control under current 

circumstances with current raw material 

sulfur contents but the BART reflects 

achievement of an SO2 emission rate 

that would involve emission control if 

the raw material contained significantly 

more sulfur. 

As noted above, the average SO2

emission rate at St. Mary’s Cement from 

2006 to 2008 was 3.02 pounds per ton 

of clinker, and the 95th percentile 30- 

day average over this period was 7.19 

pounds per clinker. Since most 

emission rates are well below 7.19 

pounds per ton of clinker, EPA is 

proposing to set a limit that reflects a 5 

percent compliance margin relative to 

this emission rate. That is, EPA is 

proposing to set a limit of 7.5 pounds 

of SO2 emissions per ton of clinker as 

a 30-day rolling average. 

This facility currently operates a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

that measures NOX and SO2 emissions 

from the kiln, and EPA envisions using 

data from this system to evaluate 

compliance with the NOX and SO2

limits it is proposing. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv), BART 

controls must be installed and operated 

as expeditiously as practicable. EPA 

believes that Saint Mary’s Cement may 

reasonably be required to conduct the 

engineering, design, installation, and 

trial operation of the SNCR to be able to 

meet this limit within about three years 

from the expected effective date of final 

promulgation of these limits. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing a compliance date for 

the NOX limit of January 1, 2016. That 

is, under this proposal, the first 30-day 

period that would be required to 

achieve an average NOX emission rate of 

2.3 #/MMBTU would be from January 1, 

2016 to January 30, 2016. EPA is 

proposing that the SO2 limit apply upon 

the effective date of the final 

promulgation of the limit, because the 

company is already complying with the 

limit. 

B. NewPage Paper 

The first step in determining BART 

for boilers 8 and 9 at NewPage Paper’s 

Escanaba facility is to review 

information relevant to the five factors 

used in evaluating BART 

determinations. First, for Boiler 8, EPA 

reevaluated costs based on the 

information provided in Michigan’s 

submittal, but replaced the capital cost 

estimate with an updated estimate that 

NewPage provided in a June 20, 2012 

email from Todd Schmidt to Douglas 

Aburano, EPA Region 5. This 

information suggests that NewPage 

could install low NOX burners at a total 

capital cost of $797,000, which, 

amortized at 7 percent interest over 20 

years, represents an annualized capital 

cost of $75,200. With the additional 

estimated annual operating cost of 

$12,000, the total estimated annualized 

cost is $87,200. EPA estimates baseline 

emissions for this boiler to be 143.2 tons 

per year, and EPA believes that low 

NOX burners would achieve a 40 

percent reduction of NOX emissions, 

which, at baseline operating rates, 

would reduce emissions by 57.3 tons 

per year. This suggests that low NOX

burners would reduce NOX emissions 

with a cost effectiveness of $1,500 per 

ton. 

There are no non-air quality-related 

impacts have been identified that affect 

the BART determination. The company 

has installed flue gas recirculation to 

help meet state limits that apply during 

the ozone season, although the company 

assumes significant costs for year-round 

operation of this design feature and 

argues that it achieves only a 12 percent 

reduction relative to ‘‘current baseline 

emissions.’’ The remaining useful life of 

the facility is unknown, but EPA 

assumed it to be sufficient to amortize 

any capital costs of control equipment 

over 15 to 20 years. 

The Michigan plan includes the 

results of modeling, conducted by the 

consultant for NewPage Paper, that is 

based on a worst-case NOX emission 

rate of 1,300 tons per year, indicating an 

impact on average visibility (from both 

NOX and SO2 emissions) of 0.4 dv. 

Thus, a reduction of NOX emissions 

from 143.2 tons per year to 85.9 tons per 

year would be estimated to reduce 

average visibility by no more than about 

0.02 dv. 

An important consideration in 

determining BART for Boiler 8 is the 

fact that the company has already 

reduced emissions from this boiler. 

According to information provided to 

the Michigan Air Emissions Reporting 

System, the average emission factor has 

declined somewhat, and usage has 

declined sufficiently that emissions in 

2010 and 2011 averaged 40 tons per year 

of NOX. Furthermore, the boiler is 

subject to a State rule that limits 

emissions during the ozone season (May 

to September) from this boiler to 0.20 #/ 

MMBTU while firing natural gas and 

0.40 #/MMBTU while firing residual oil. 

To meet this rule, the company has 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46925 

2Operation in 2010 and 2011, during which the 

boiler was gas-fired, yielded a 30-day average 

emission factor of up to about 0.24 #/MMBTU. 

Operation in 2008 and 2009, during which the 

boiler was often oil-fired, yielded emission factors 

up to about 0.45 #/MMBTU. 

installed flue gas recirculation, although 

usage of this system is limited. 

Michigan did not submit this rule for 

inclusion in the SIP, but EPA believes 

that slightly higher limits can 

reasonably be achieved on a year-round 

basis. Given the decline in usage of this 

boiler, EPA believes that imposition of 

limits comparable to emissions rates 

currently being achieved will suffice to 

assure an appropriate level of protection 

from visibility impacts from this boiler, 

comparable to the reductions that would 

be achieved if the boiler were operated 

at previous usage rates and installed a 

low NOX burner. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to establish limits on pounds 

of NOX emissions per million BTUs, to 

be met as a 30-day rolling average. The 

facility is not now burning residual oil, 

but EPA proposes to identify limits for 

NOX emissions from combustion of both 

natural gas and residual oil. EPA 

proposes to mandate that Boiler 8 meet 

a limit, calculated as a 30-day rolling 

average, that would be computed as a 

weighted average based on the relative 

quantities of heat input from burning 

natural gas and from burning residual 

oil. EPA is proposing fuel specific limits 

of 0.26 #/MMBTU for combustion of 

natural gas and 0.50 #/MMBTU for 

combustion of residual oil, in each case 

representing approximately 10 percent 

above the upper end of the range of 

emission rates under current operation.2

Compliance information will be 

obtained from a continuous emission 

monitoring system that the company 

operates on this boiler. Since the boiler 

is often not operating, EPA will 

compute 30-day averages on the basis of 

30 successive operating days, not 

counting days in which the boiler does 

not operate. EPA envisions that the 

company will be able to meet these 

limits by maintaining existing 

operations (maintaining existing 

combustion improvements), but finds 

that the company also has the flexibility 

to meet these limits by installing low 

NOX burners or using its flue gas 

recirculation equipment more 

frequently. These limits reflect EPA’s 

proposed judgment that the existing 

emission reductions are warranted as 

BART but that further emission 

reductions are not warranted for the 

limited benefits they would achieve. 

For Boiler 9, usage rates have 

remained relatively steady, but the 

company modified its boiler design in 

2006 to incorporate overfire air. Stack 

tests for this boiler indicate that this 

modification decreased NOX emissions 

from about 0.69 #/MMBTU to about 0.20 

to 0.22 #/MMBTU. The company has 

not provided cost information regarding 

this modification, but maintaining this 

modification is clearly cost effective. 

Modeling in Michigan’s submittal 

indicates that 345 tons per year of NOX

emissions from this boiler, in 

combination with about 50 tons per year 

of SO2 emissions, have an average 

visibility impact of 0.2 dv. Therefore, 

the modification to incorporate overfire 

air, with which Boiler 9 NOX emissions 

have decreased from an estimated 

average of 840 tons per year in 2002 to 

2004 to an estimated average of 240 tons 

per year in 2009 to 2011, is estimated 

to have yielded a visibility improvement 

of 0.4 dv. No non-air quality related 

environmental impacts have been 

identified to influence the choice of 

BART, and remaining useful life of the 

facility is also not a significant factor. 

From its consideration of these factors, 

EPA concludes that the overfire air 

modifications that the company has 

made are included in BART for this 

boiler. At the same time, based on 

information in Michigan’s submittal, 

EPA agrees with the conclusion in 

Michigan’s submittal that no further 

control of this boiler constitutes BART. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing limits to 

mandate the continued operation of the 

overfire air system that the company has 

installed on Boiler 9. Since no system 

for continuous emission monitoring is 

operating on this boiler, EPA is 

proposing a limit that would be 

enforced by stack tests. As noted above, 

the most recent stack tests for this boiler 

indicated NOX emission rates of 0.22 #/ 

MMBTU and 0.20 #/MMBTU, 

respectively. To accommodate a modest 

degree of stack test variability, EPA is 

proposing to set a limit with a 25 

percent compliance margin. That is, 

EPA is proposing a NOX emission limit 

for Boiler 9 of 0.27 #/MMBTU. (This 

emission rate also is about 10 percent 

higher than the highest single run test 

result reported by the company.) 

NewPage Paper has already 

implemented measures to meet these 

limits on Boilers 8 and 9. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing that these limits take 

effect upon the effective date of the 

rulemaking promulgating these limits. 

VI. What actions is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing limited approval of 

revisions to the Michigan SIP, submitted 

on November 5, 2010, addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. The revisions 

seek to satisfy Clean Air Act and 

regional haze rule requirements for 

states to remedy any existing 

anthropogenic and prevent future 

impairment of visibility at Class I areas. 

EPA finds that Michigan’s submission 

satisfies BART requirements for some of 

the non-EGUs, most notably based on a 

Federal consent decree requiring new 

controls for SO2 and NOX emissions for 

the Lafarge plant. On the other hand, 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Michigan’s submittal does not require 

BART at St. Mary’s Cement’s facility in 

Charlevoix or at NewPage Paper’s 

facility in Escanaba. Specifically, we are 

proposing limited disapproval of the 

NOX and SO2 BART determination for 

the cement kiln and associated 

equipment at the St. Mary’s Cement 

facility and of the NOX BART 

determination for Boiler 8 and 9 of the 

NewPage Paper Company. Further, we 

propose a FIP that specifically imposes 

NOX and SO2 limits mandating BART 

for the cement kiln and associated 

equipment for the St. Mary’s Cement 

facility, and NOX limits mandating 

BART for Boilers 8 and 9 of the 

NewPage Paper Company. 

EPA is also reviewing Michigan’s 

BART determination for Tilden Mining 

taconite plant. EPA plans to take action 

on this BART determination in a 

separate action that includes similar 

facilities in Minnesota. 

Michigan’s submission provides an 

approvable analysis of the emission 

reductions needed to satisfy reasonable 

progress and other regional haze 

planning requirements, and Michigan’s 

submission meets other regional haze 

planning requirements such as 

identification of affected Class I areas 

and provision of a monitoring plan. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The 

proposed Virgin Islands Regional Haze 

FIP requires implementation of existing 

emissions controls and emission 

reduction strategies on one facility and 

is not a rule of general applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46926 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

a requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

persons * * *.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). 

Because the proposed FIP applies to just 

one facility, the Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. An agency 

may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 

40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

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

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed action on small 

entities, I certify that this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Regional 

Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for 

purposes of the regional haze program 

consists of imposing existing Federal 

controls to meet the BART requirement 

for SO2, NOX, and PM emissions on 

specific units at one facility in the 

Virgin Islands. The net result of this FIP 

action is that EPA is proposing existing 

direct emission controls on selected 

units at only one facility. The facility in 

question is a large petroleum refinery 

that is not owned by a small entity, and 

therefore is not a small entity. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

that exceed the inflation-adjusted 

UMRA threshold of $100 million by 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The proposed Virgin Islands Regional 

Haze FIP does not have federalism 

implications. This action 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. In this action, 

EPA is fulfilling its statutory duty under 

Clean Air Act section 110(c) to 

promulgate a Regional Haze FIP 

following its finding that the Virgin 

Islands had failed to submit a regional 

haze SIP. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying 

only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the EO has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to EO 13045 because it 

implements specific standards 

established by Congress in statutes. 

However, to the extent this proposed 

rule will limit emissions of SO2, NOX, 

and PM the rule will have a beneficial 

effect on children’s health by reducing 

air pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (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 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(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. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46927 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it limits increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 13, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of 

Federal regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 52.1170 is amended by 

adding a new entry at the end of the 

table in paragraph (e) for ‘‘Regional 

Haze Plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal 

date EPA approved date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ................. Statewide ............................................. 11/5/2010 8/6/12, [Insert page number where the document begins].Includes all regional haze 

plan elements except 

BART emission limitations for EGUs, St. 

Mary’s Cement, 

NewPage Paper, and 

Tilden Mining. 

3. Section 52.1183 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i), to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1183 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(g) The requirements of section 169A 

of the Clean Air Act are not met because 

the regional haze plan submitted on 

November 5, 2010, does not meet the 

best available retrofit technology 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e) with 

respect to emissions of NOx and SO2

from Saint Mary’s Cement in Charlevoix 

and NOX from NewPage Paper in 

Escanaba. These requirements for these 

two facilities are satisfied by 40 CFR 

52.1183(h) and 40 CFR 52.1183(i), 

respectively. 

(h)(1) For the 30-day period beginning 

January 1, 2016, and thereafter, Saint 

Mary’s Cement, or any subsequent 

owner or operator of the Saint Mary’s 

Cement facility located in Charlevoix, 

Michigan, shall not cause or permit the 

emission of oxides of nitrogen 

(expressed as NO2) to exceed 2.30 

pounds per ton of clinker as a 30-day 

rolling average. 

(2) Saint Mary’s Cement, or any 

subsequent owner or operator of the 

Saint Mary’s Cement facility located in 

Charlevoix, Michigan, shall not cause or 

permit the emission of sulfur dioxide to 

exceed 7.50 pounds per ton of clinker as 

a 12-month average. 

(3) Saint Mary’s Cement, or any 

subsequent owner or operator of the 

Saint Mary’s Cement facility located in 

Charlevoix, Michigan, shall operate 

continuous emission monitoring 

systems to measure NOX and SO2

emissions from its kiln system in 

conformance with 40 CFR 60 appendix 

B Performance Specification 2. 

(4) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraph (h)(1) shall be use of a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

operated in conformance with 40 CFR 

60 appendix B Performance 

Specification 2. A new 30-day average 

shall be computed at the end of each 

calendar day. 

(5) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraph (h)(2) shall be use of a 

continuous emission monitoring system 

operated in conformance with 40 CFR 

60 appendix B Performance 

Specification 2. A new 12-month 

average shall be computed at the end of 

each calendar month. 

(6) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator 

shall maintain the following records for 

at least five years: 

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(ii) All records of clinker production, 

monitored in accordance with 40 CFR 

60.63. 

(iii) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(iv) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, CEMS 

and clinker production measurement 

devices. 

(v) Any other records required by 40 

CFR part 60, Subpart F, or 40 CFR part 

60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(7) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to Chief, Air 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE–17J, 77 

W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604– 

3590. 

(i) Owner/operator of each unit shall 

submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for SO2 and NOX BART limits no 

later than the 30th day following the 

end of each calendar quarter. Excess 

emissions means emissions that exceed 

the emissions limits specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The reports 

shall include the magnitude, date(s), 

and duration of each period of excess 

emissions, specific identification of 

each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(ii) Owner/operator of each unit shall 

submit quarterly CEMS performance 

reports, to include dates and duration of 

each period during which the CEMS 

was inoperative (except for zero and 

span adjustments and calibration 

checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was 

inoperative and steps taken to prevent 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
46928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or 

adjustments. 

(iii) Owner/operator shall also submit 

results of any CEMS performance tests 

required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, 

Procedure 1 (Relative Accuracy Test 

Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and 

Cylinder Gas Audits). 

(iv) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by sections (7)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) NewPage Paper, or any subsequent 

owner or operator of the NewPage Paper 

facility in Escanaba, Michigan, shall not 

cause or permit the emission of oxides 

of nitrogen (expressed as NO2) to exceed 

the following limits: 

(1) For Boiler 8, designated as 

EU8B13, a 30-day weighted average 

limit on emissions per million British 

Thermal Units, based on a limit for 

natural gas firing of 0.26 pounds per 

million British Thermal Units (#/ 

MMBTU) and a limit for residual oil 

firing of 0.50 #/MMBTU, weighted 

according to the heat input for each fuel, 

to be computed as follows: 

Emission limit, in #/MMBTU = [0.26 

* (heat input from firing natural gas) + 

0.50 * (heat input from firing residual 

oil)]/(total heat input). 

(2) NewPage Paper, or any subsequent 

owner or operator of the NewPage Paper 

facility located in Escanaba, Michigan, 

shall operate a continuous emission 

monitoring system to measure NOX

emissions from Boiler 8 in conformance 

with 40 CFR 60 appendix B 

Performance Specification 2. 

(3) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraph (i)(1) shall be a continuous 

emission monitoring system operated in 

conformance with 40 CFR 60 appendix 

B Performance Specification 2. A new 

30-day average shall be computed at the 

end of each calendar day in which the 

boiler operated. Each average shall 

include the most recent 30 days in 

which the boiler operated, and shall 

exclude days in which the boiler did not 

operate. 

(4) For Boiler 9, also identified as 

EU9B03, a limit of 0.27 #/MMBTU. 

(5) The reference test method for 

assessing compliance with the limit in 

paragraph (i)(4) shall be a test 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

60 appendix A Method 7. 

(6) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator 

shall maintain the following records 

regarding Boiler 8 and Boiler 9 for at 

least five years: 

(i) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(ii) All stack test results. 

(iii) Daily records of fuel usage, heat 

input, and data used to determine heat 

content. 

(iv) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(v) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS. 

(vi) Any other records identified in 40 

CFR 60.49b(g) or 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix F, Procedure 1. 

(7) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to the Chief, 

Air Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance Branch, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code 

AE–17J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 

IL 60604–3590. 

(i) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for the limit in paragraph (i)(1) 

no later than the 30th day following the 

end of each calendar quarter. Excess 

emissions means emissions that exceed 

the emissions limit specified in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. The 

reports shall include the magnitude, 

date(s), and duration of each period of 

excess emissions, specific identification 

of each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. 

(ii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

submit quarterly CEMS performance 

reports, to include dates and duration of 

each period during which the CEMS 

was inoperative (except for zero and 

span adjustments and calibration 

checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was 

inoperative and steps taken to prevent 

recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or 

adjustments. 

(iii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall 

also submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 

(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative 

Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder Gas 

Audits). 

(iv) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by sections (i)(7) of this 

section. 

(v) Owner/operator of Boiler 9 shall 

submit reports of any test measuring 

NOx emissions from Boiler 9 within 60 

days of the last day of the test. If owner/ 

operator commences operation of a 

continuous NOx emission monitoring 

system for Boiler 9, owner/operator 

shall submit reports for Boiler 9 as 

specified for Boiler 8 in paragraphs 

(i)(7)(i) to (i)(7)(iv). 

[FR Doc. 2012–19039 Filed 8–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2