Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3681 

examination certificate will indicate the 

result of the determination whether any 

of the items of information presented in 

the request raised a substantial new 

question of patentability. 

(b) If the supplemental examination 

certificate states that a substantial new 

question of patentability is raised by one 

or more items of information in the 

request, 

ex parte reexamination of the patent 

will be ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257. 

Upon the conclusion of the ex parte 

reexamination proceeding, an ex parte 

reexamination certificate, which will 

include a statement specifying that ex 

parte reexamination was ordered under 

35 U.S.C. 257, will be published. The 

electronically issued supplemental 

examination certificate will remain as 

part of the public record of the patent. 

(c) If the supplemental examination 

certificate indicates that no substantial 

new question of patentability is raised 

by any of the items of information in the 

request, and ex parte reexamination is 

not ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257, the 

electronically issued supplemental 

examination certificate will be 

published in due course. The 

reexamination fee for supplemental 

examination, as set forth in § 1.20(k)(2), 

will be refunded in accordance with 

§ 1.26(c). 

(d) Any ex parte reexamination 

ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257 will be 

conducted in accordance with §§ 1.530 

through 1.570, which govern ex parte 

reexamination, except that: 

(1) The patent owner will not have the 

right to file a statement pursuant to 

§ 1.530, and the order will not set a time 

period within which to file such a 

statement; 

(2) Reexamination of any aspect of the 

patent may be conducted on the basis of 

any item of information as set forth in 

§ 1.605, and is not limited to patents 

and printed publications or to subject 

matter that has been added or deleted 

during the reexamination proceeding, 

notwithstanding § 1.552(a); 

(3) Issues in addition to those raised 

by patents and printed publications, and 

by subject matter added or deleted 

during a reexamination proceeding, may 

be considered and resolved, 

notwithstanding § 1.552(c); and 

(4) Information material to 

patentability will be defined by 

§ 1.56(b), notwithstanding § 1.555(b). 

6. Section 1.937 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.937 Conduct of inter partes 

reexamination. 

* * * * * 

(d) A petition in an inter partes 

reexamination proceeding must be 

accompanied by the fee set forth in 

§ 1.20(c)(6), except for petitions under 

§ 1.956 to extend the period for response 

by a patent owner, petitions under 

§ 1.958 to accept a delayed response by 

a patent owner, petitions under § 1.78 to 

accept an unintentionally delayed 

benefit claim, and petitions under 

§ 1.530(l) for correction of inventorship 

in a reexamination proceeding. 

Dated: January 19, 2012. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1480 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0037; FRL–9622–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Minnesota State Implementation 

Plan addressing regional haze for the 

first implementation period. Minnesota 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

December 30, 2009. A supplemental 

submission was made on January 5, 

2012. The Minnesota regional haze plan 

addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) and 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

to remedy any existing and prevent 

future anthropogenic visibility 

impairment at mandatory Class I areas. 

We are proposing fully to approve the 

Minnesota regional haze plan if 

Minnesota submits its proposed Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

emission limits for taconite facilities in 

fully adopted form prior to our final 

action under this proposal, or to 

conditionally approve the plan if 

Minnesota has not done so. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0037, 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– 

0037. 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3682 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a Federal Land 

Manager. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area,’’ we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I 

Federal area.’’ 

2Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

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

the CAA for the State of New Mexico under the 

New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74– 

2–4). 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

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

regional haze plan? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

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 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 its precursors—sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

and in some cases ammonia (NH3), and 

volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter. Aerosol PM2.5 impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity and distance one can see. PM2.5

can also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range, the distance at 

which an object is barely discernable, in 

many Class I areas 1 in the western 

United States is 100–150 kilometers. 

That is about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

the Eastern and Midwestern Class I 

areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is generally less than 30 

kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s RHR 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 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 represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze, the RHR, on July 

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

the existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in section III. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

state implementation plan (SIP) applies 

to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and the Virgin Islands.2

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. Pollution affecting the 

air quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, 

effectively addressing the problem of 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3683 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

means that states need to develop 

coordinated strategies that take into 

account the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in another 

state. 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes to address visibility impairment 

from a regional perspective because the 

pollutants that lead to regional haze can 

originate from sources located across 

broad geographic areas. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce PM2.5

emissions and other pollutants leading 

to regional haze. 

The RPO for Minnesota is the Central 

Regional Air Planning Association 

(CENRAP). CENRAP’s membership 

includes the states of Arkansas, Iowa, 

Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, along 

with tribes and federal land 

management agencies (FLMs). 

Minnesota also worked with the 

Midwest RPO (MRPO) on technical 

analyses of regional haze and visibility 

in the Midwest. The MRPO member 

states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and the Transport Rule 

to Regional Haze Requirements 

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

required some states to reduce 

emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

contribute to violations of the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone. 

70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 

established emissions budgets for SO2

and NOX. A 2006 EPA determination 

(71 FR 60612, October 13, 2006) 

establishes that states opting to 

participate in the CAIR program need 

not require BART for SO2 and NOX at 

BART-eligible electric generating units 

(EGUs). Many states relied on CAIR as 

an alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX

for its subject EGUs. 

On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its decision to vacate and remand 

both CAIR and the associated CAIR 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) in 

their entirety. See North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

However, the Court issued an order on 

December 23, 2008, remanding CAIR to 

EPA without vacating either CAIR or the 

CAIR FIPs in response to EPA’s petition 

for rehearing. The Court held that, 

among other things, EPA had not 

properly addressed possible errors in 

analysis supporting the inclusion of 

Minnesota in CAIR for PM2.5. The Court 

left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs 

and FIPs in place until EPA replaces it 

with a rule consistent with the court’s 

opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d at 1178. In a November 3, 2009 (74 

FR 56721) final rule, EPA 

administratively stayed the effectiveness 

of CAIR and the CAIR FIP with respect 

to Minnesota and sources in Minnesota 

only. 

EPA subsequently promulgated the 

Transport Rule, also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, to 

replace CAIR. The final Transport Rule 

was published on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 

48208). Minnesota is covered by the 

Transport Rule. 

In the Transport Rule, EPA noted that 

it had not conducted a technical 

analysis at that time to determine 

whether compliance with the Transport 

Rule would satisfy the requirements of 

the RHR addressing alternatives to 

BART. EPA has since conducted such 

an analysis and proposed on December 

30, 2011, that compliance with the 

Transport Rule will provide for greater 

reasonable progress toward improving 

visibility than source-specific BART 

controls for EGUs located in those states 

covered by the Transport Rule. 76 FR 

82219. On that same day, the DC Circuit 

issued an order addressing the status of 

the Transport Rule and CAIR in 

response to motions filed by numerous 

parties seeking a stay of the Transport 

Rule pending judicial review. In that 

order, the DC Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule pending the court’s 

resolutions of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated 

cases). The court also indicated that 

EPA is expected to continue to 

administer the CAIR in the interim until 

the court rules on the petitions for 

review of the Transport Rule. 

On January 5, 2012, Minnesota 

submitted a draft supplement to its 

regional haze plan, including a 

statement that it wishes to rely on the 

Transport Rule to satisfy BART 

requirements for SO2 and NOX for 

EGUs. 

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, the 

reasonable progress goal (RPG). Section 

169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish LTS for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting the RPG. Plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require those sources to install 

BART reducing visibility impairment. 

The specific regional haze SIP 

requirements are discussed in further 

detail below. 

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility impairment. This 

visibility metric expresses uniform 

proportional changes in haziness in 

terms of common increments across the 

entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Visibility expressed in 

deciview is determined by using air 

quality measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.3

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs, defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution. The national goal is a 

return to natural conditions such that 

anthropogenic sources of air pollution 

would no longer impair visibility in 

Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP is submitted and at 

the progress review every five years, 

midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR 

requires states with Class I areas (Class 

I states) to determine the degree of 

impairment in deciviews for the average 

of the 20 percent (%) least impaired 

(best) and 20% most impaired (worst) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of its Class I areas. Each 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3684 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

state must also develop an estimate of 

natural visibility conditions for the 

purpose of comparing progress toward 

the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural 

concentrations of pollutants that cause 

visibility impairment and then 

calculating total light extinction based 

on those estimates. EPA has provided 

guidance to states regarding how to 

calculate baseline, natural, and current 

visibility conditions in documents 

titled, EPA’s Guidance for Estimating 

Natural Visibility conditions under the 

Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 

(EPA–454/B–03–005 located at http:// 

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

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 

September 2003 located at http:// 

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

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIP, due 

December 17, 2007, the ‘‘baseline 

visibility conditions’’ are the starting 

points for assessing ‘‘current’’ visibility 

impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20% best 

days and 20% worst days for each 

calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using 

monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, 

states are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area, based on the 

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

baseline visibility conditions to natural 

visibility conditions indicates the 

amount of improvement necessary to 

attain natural visibility, while 

comparisons of future conditions 

against baseline conditions will indicate 

the amount of progress made. In general, 

the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

B. Determination of RPGs 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress toward achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two distinct RPGs, 

one for the best days and one for the 

worst days for every Class I area for each 

approximately 10-year implementation 

period. The RHR does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a 

state with a mandatory Class I area 

(Class I state) must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the worst 

days over the approximately 10-year 

period of the SIP and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the best 

days. 

Class I states have significant 

discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 169A of 

the CAA and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. The states must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

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

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (‘‘uniform 

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

the emissions reduction needed to 

achieve that rate of progress over the 

approximately 10-year period of the SIP. 

In setting RPGs, each Class I state must 

also consult with potentially 

contributing states, i.e., those states that 

may affect visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

C. BART 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain older large stationary 

sources to address visibility impacts 

from these sources. Specifically, CAA 

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

revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the natural 

visibility goal including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

BART as determined by the state. The 

set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in 

CAA section 169A(g)(7). The state can 

require source-specific BART controls, 

but it also has the flexibility to adopt an 

alternative such as a trading program 

only if the alternate provides greater 

progress toward improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (BART 

Guidelines) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. A state must use the 

approach in the BART Guidelines in 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired 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 an exemption 

threshold value for their BART 

modeling under the BART Guidelines, 

below which a BART-eligible source 

may be considered to have a small 

enough contribution to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area to 

warrant being exempted from the BART 

requirement. The state must document 

this exemption threshold value in the 

SIP and must state the basis for its 

selection of that value. The exemption 

threshold set by the state should not be 

higher than 0.5 dv. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual source’s 

impact. 

The state must identify potential 

BART sources in its SIP, described as 

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

and document its BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

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

to consider the following factors: (1) The 

costs of compliance; (2) the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3685 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. The BART 

controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

state’s regional haze SIP. CAA section 

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

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

The RHR also allows states to 

implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART if desired so long as the 

alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

progress toward the national visibility 

goal than implementing BART controls. 

EPA made such a demonstration for 

CAIR under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program. 70 

FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s 

regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR trading 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 

part 97 need not require affected BARTeligible EGUs to install, operate, and 

maintain BART for emissions of SO2

and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). CAIR is 

not applicable to emissions of PM, so 

states were still required to conduct a 

BART analysis for PM emissions from 

EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. 

As described above in section II, the 

DC Circuit found CAIR to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA. The rule was remanded to 

EPA but left in place until the Agency 

replaced it. EPA replaced CAIR with the 

Transport Rule in August 2011. 

On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed 

to find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would be obtained by 

implementing BART for SO2 and NOX

for BART-subject EGUs in the area 

subject to the Transport Rule 76 FR 

82219. Based on that proposed finding, 

EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 

allow states to meet the requirements of 

an alternative program in lieu of BART 

by participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule. The 

Transport Rule is not applicable to 

emissions of PM, so states would still be 

required to conduct a BART analysis for 

PM emissions from EGUs subject to 

BART for that pollutant. EPA has not 

taken final action on that rule. 

D. LTS 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPGs for all 

Class I areas within or affected by 

emissions from the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

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

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to address interstate visibility 

issues sufficiently. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS. The 

seven factors are: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

RAVI LTS 

EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), which 

is a part of the RHR, regarding the LTS 

for RAVI. The RAVI plan must provide 

for a periodic review and SIP revision 

not less frequently than every three 

years until the date of submission of the 

state’s first plan addressing regional 

haze visibility impairment in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). The state must revise its plan to 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI 

and regional haze on or before this date. 

It must also submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

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

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must be submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision and report on both RAVI and 

regional haze impairment. In cases 

involving sources newly certified as 

RAVI sources, 40 CFR 51.306(c) 

provides for the State to revise its plan 

as appropriate within 3 years of receipt 

of the RAVI certification. 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network, 

meaning that the state reviews and uses 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The monitoring strategy is due with the 

first regional haze SIP and it must be 

reviewed every five years. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3686 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, to be submitted in electronic 

format, if available; 

• A statewide inventory of emissions 

of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The inventory must include emissions 

for a baseline year, emissions for the 

most recent year with available data, 

and future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018 with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

G. Consultation With States and FLMs 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for in person consultation 

at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Minnesota’s regional haze plan? 

Minnesota submitted its regional haze 

plan on December 30, 2009, which 

included revisions to the Minnesota SIP 

to address regional haze. Minnesota also 

supplemented its regional haze plan by 

submitting additional material on 

January 5, 2012. 

A. Class I Areas 

States are required to address regional 

haze affecting Class I areas within a 

state and in Class I areas outside the 

state that may be affected by the state’s 

emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Minnesota 

has two Class I areas, Boundary Waters 

Canoe Wilderness Area (Boundary 

Waters) and Voyageurs National Park 

(Voyageurs), within the state. Minnesota 

is responsible for developing a regional 

haze plan that addresses these Class I 

areas and for consulting with states that 

affect its areas. 

Minnesota reviewed technical 

analyses conducted by CENRAP and 

other RPOs to determine what Class I 

areas outside the state are affected by 

Minnesota emission sources. 

Minnesota’s modeling shows that its 

emissions contribute to visibility 

impairment at Isle Royale National Park 

in Michigan. Minnesota emission 

sources were also found by the CENRAP 

analysis to contribute to visibility 

impairment at Wichita Mountains 

Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma. 

Minnesota has met the requirement to 

identify affected Class I areas. 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

The RHR requires Class I states to 

calculate the baseline, current, and 

natural conditions for their Class I areas. 

Natural background visibility is 

estimated by calculating the expected 

light extinction using estimates of 

natural concentrations of pollutants 

adjusted by an estimate of humidity. 

The IMPROVE algorithm is used to 

make this calculation. EPA allows states 

to use an alternative approach to 

calculating natural conditions. One 

alternative approach is to use the 

refined IMPROVE algorithm, which is 

what Minnesota chose to do. Minnesota 

determined that natural visibility 

conditions for Boundary Waters are best 

represented by an average of 11.6 dv for 

the 20% most impaired days and 3.4 dv 

for the 20% least impaired days. Natural 

conditions for Voyageurs were predicted 

to be 12.2 dv on the most impaired days 

and 4.3 dv on the least impaired days. 

The baseline visibility conditions are 

the same as the current conditions for 

this initial regional haze 

implementation period. Minnesota used 

IMPROVE monitoring data to calculate 

the baseline visibility conditions at its 

Class I areas. Data from 2000–2004 was 

used to calculate the impairment on the 

20% best and 20% worst visibility days 

at Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. The 

refined IMPROVE equation is used to 

calculate the baseline conditions. 

Minnesota calculated the baseline 

visibility impairment at Boundary 

Waters as 19.9 dv on the 20% most 

impaired days and 6.4 dv on the 20% 

least impaired days. The state found the 

baseline visibility impairment at 

Voyageurs to be 19.5 dv on the 20% 

worst visibility days and 7.1 dv on the 

cleanest 20% of days. 

Minnesota compared the baseline or 

current to the natural visibility 

impairment. This determines the 

visibility improvement needed over the 

60-year period (2004 to 2064) to reach 

natural conditions. An annual rate can 

simply be calculated by dividing the 

needed improvement by 60 years. The 

state can use the annual visibility 

improvement rate for the most impaired 

days to set its uniform rate of progress 

(URP) targets for each implementation 

period. 

For Boundary Waters, the difference 

between the baseline, 19.9 dv, and the 

natural, 11.6 dv, on the 20% most 

impaired days is 8.3 dv, which yields an 

annual rate of 0.14 dv. The difference on 

the 20% least impaired days between 

the 6.4 dv baseline and 3.4 dv natural 

conditions is 3.0 dv. The differences at 

Voyageurs are 7.3 dv on the most 

impaired days (19.5–12.2 dv) and 2.8 dv 

(7.1–4.3 dv) on the least impaired days. 

The annual rate of visibility 

improvement needed for the 20% most 

impaired days is 0.12 dv per year to 

achieve the URP. Minnesota then 

calculated the 2018 URP goals of 17.9 

dv for Boundary Waters and 17.8 dv for 

Voyageurs. These goals for the 20% 

most impaired days were calculated by 

multiplying the annual rate of 

improvement by the 14 years since the 

2004 baseline. There is to be no 

degradation of the visibility on 20% best 

days, so no calculation is needed as the 

2018 goals match the baseline. EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance states 

that the URP is not a presumptive target 

for the RPG. Class I states can set the 

RPG at the URP or it can set the RPG 

at greater or less visibility impairment. 

C. RPGs 

Minnesota teamed with MRPO and 

Michigan to establish RPGs for the four 

Northern Class I areas including 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3687 

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. The 

Northern Class I areas consultation 

group worked together to determine the 

RPGs by first identifying and 

prioritizing 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 

mobile sources, and ammonia from 

agricultural operations. Minnesota 

identified regional SO2 emissions from 

EGUs as a key contributor to visibility 

impairment in Boundary Waters and 

Voyageurs. Minnesota also identified 

NOX and SO2 emissions from sources in 

the six counties of Northeastern 

Minnesota as important contributors. 

The counties of Carlton, Cook, Itasca, 

Koochiching, Lake, and Saint Louis 

comprise the Northeast Minnesota area. 

The second step of the process was to 

identify control options for the priority 

sources. The group identified existing 

control measures including CAIR, 

BART, Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards, on-road mobile 

source programs, and non-road mobile 

source programs. MRPO examined 

different potential control scenarios, 

two control levels for EGUs and two 

control levels for industrial, 

commercial, and institutional (ICI) 

boilers. Minnesota determined that most 

of its priority sources, including EGUs 

and indurating furnaces at taconite 

facilities, are subject to BART. Other 

priority sources will be subject to 

emissions control to comply with the 

Northeast Minnesota plan (see section 

IV.E). 

The third step of the process is to 

assess existing control programs. In its 

initial plan development, Minnesota 

considered reductions from CAIR. 

Subsequently, CAIR was suspended in 

Minnesota, but then EPA promulgated 

the Transport Rule to regulate EGU 

emissions in Minnesota again. 

Therefore, Minnesota’s plan continues 

to include EGU emission reductions that 

once again may be considered mandated 

by a regional trading program. The state 

is also accounting for emission 

reductions from voluntary projects 

being undertaken by EGUs due to 

Minnesota statue 216B.1692, which 

allows the recovery of the costs of 

environmental projects. Minnesota 

further considered the emission 

reductions from implementing BART 

controls on its sources and sources in 

other states. Minnesota took into 

account the reductions anticipated from 

other federal controls such as Tier II 

mobile source standards, heavy-duty 

diesel engine standards, low sulfur fuel, 

and non-road mobile source control 

programs. 

The fourth step is to determine which 

control options may be reasonable. The 

Northern Class I areas group further 

considered the MRPO EGU scenario 

with 0.15 lb SO2/MMBTU and 0.10 lb 

NOX/MMBTU limits by 2013 and the ICI 

boiler option with a 40% reduction in 

SO2 emissions and a 60% reduction in 

NOX emissions by 2013. Minnesota used 

a CENRAP emissions-to-distance 

analysis. CENRAP took source 

emissions in tons divided by the 

distance to an affected Class I area in 

kilometers. When this ratio was greater 

than or equal to five, potential controls 

were evaluated. This analysis identified 

some Minnesota sources with potential 

for cost effective NOX reductions. 

However, Minnesota noted that the 

identified sources are already 

implementing controls. 

The final step of the process to 

determine the RPGs was to compare the 

control strategies to the URP. Minnesota 

included all control measures believed 

to be reasonable and compared the 

resulting visibility improvement to the 

URP. Minnesota set the RPGs for 

Boundary Waters at 18.6 dv for the 

worst 20% of days and 6.4 dv for the 

best 20% of days in 2018. This annual 

0.09 dv improvement rate would lead to 

achieving natural conditions on the 

worst 20% of days in 2093. The 2018 

RPG for Boundary Waters provides less 

improvement than the linear progress 

benchmark of 17.9 dv. Minnesota 

determined that the RPGs for Voyageurs 

are 18.9 dv for the worst 20% of days 

and 7.1 dv for the best 20% of days in 

2018. Projecting this 0.04 dv per year 

improvement into the future yields 

Voyageurs reaching natural conditions 

on the worst 20% of days in 2177. As 

was the case for Boundary Waters, the 

2018 RPG for Voyageurs provides less 

improvement than the linear progress 

benchmark of 17.8 dv. Minnesota 

considers the RPGs to be the result of 

the minimally acceptable visibility 

improvement. Minnesota detailed 

potential controls in Chapter 10 of its 

regional haze plan. 

Minnesota consulted with other states 

to determine which Class I areas are 

impaired by emissions from its sources. 

The consultation also allowed 

Minnesota 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 Minnesota’s Class I areas, 

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. 

Minnesota identified the contributing 

states from MPRO’s 2018 PSAT 

analysis. Other analyses from CENRAP 

and MRPO support the contribution 

determination. The pollutants and 

sources affecting Boundary Waters and 

Voyageurs are detailed in Chapter 10 of 

the Minnesota regional haze plan. 

Minnesota consulted with the FLMs 

during the development of its regional 

haze plan. The FLMs participated in 

CENRAP and on Northern Class I areas 

group calls, which allowed for FLM 

comment about technical issues and 

control strategies. Minnesota also 

consulted directly with the FLMs during 

plan development about its visibility 

impairment at Class I areas assessment, 

setting the RPGs, and the development 

of strategies to address visibility 

impairment. 

The FLMs participated at stakeholder 

meetings in January and May 2007. 

Consultation with the FLMs continued 

as Minnesota prepared its BART 

determinations. Further consultation 

occurred in the summer of 2007 while 

Minnesota cultivated a strategy to 

address visibility impairment resulting 

from emission sources in close 

proximity to the Class I areas. A draft of 

the regional haze plan was discussed at 

a September 20 and 21, 2007, meeting 

at Voyageurs. Minnesota sent the FLMs 

its regional haze plan on February 4, 

2008. The public hearing on the regional 

haze plan was held on April 10, 2008. 

Thus, the state met the provisions of the 

RHR to provide the FLMs at least 60 

days to review the plan prior to the 

public hearing. Minnesota will continue 

to consult with the FLMs on regional 

haze in the future. 

Minnesota actively participated in 

CENRAP meetings and conference calls. 

Minnesota also participated in some 

MRPO meetings and conference calls 

even though it is not a MRPO member. 

Beyond the technical analyses produced 

by the RPOs, Minnesota was able to 

consult with states and tribes 

throughout the region because of its 

RPO participation. Minnesota and 

Michigan coordinated the Northern 

Class I areas conference calls, which 

allowed the states to consult with the 

states contributing to visibility 

impairment at Boundary Waters, 

Voyageurs, and two Class I areas in 

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and North 

Dakota participated on the Northern 

Class I areas calls and thus, consulted 

with Minnesota. Michigan and 

Minnesota also consulted with each 

other. The Northern Class I areas 

consultation group also included a 

number of other governmental entities. 

Participating tribes included the Leech 

Lake Band of Ojibwe, Mille Lacs Band 

of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa, Grand Portage Band 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3688 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

of Chippewa, Upper Sioux, Lower 

Sioux, and Huron Potawatomi. EPA, 

National Park Service, and Forest 

Service also participated in the 

consultation calls along the Ontario 

Ministry of the Environment. The 

Northern Class I areas consultation 

group began in 2004 by working on air 

quality planning. Later the group 

discussed the SIP requirements of the 

regional haze program including sharing 

technical information on regular 

conference calls from July 2006 to 

February 2008. In September 2007, 

Minnesota sent a letter to the states 

participating in the Northern Class I 

areas group as these states contribute to 

visibility impairment in Boundary 

Waters or Voyageurs. This letter 

formally acknowledged the consultation 

occurring in the group. Details of 

consultations including the Northern 

Class I areas process are included in 

Chapter 3 of the Minnesota regional 

haze plan. 

In addition to demonstrating the effect 

of emissions from other states on its 

Class I areas, Minnesota must also show 

that it will obtain its share of emission 

reductions from its sources. Thus, 

Minnesota’s emission reduction 

obligations will allow the affected Class 

I areas to meet the RPGs. Minnesota 

performed technical analyses and 

modeling to analyze its contribution to 

visibility impairment. The state 

concluded that sulfates, nitrates, and 

organic carbon are the main contributors 

to visibility impairment. Minnesota thus 

decided to focus emission reduction 

efforts on SO2 and NOX, as it found the 

organic particles tend to come from 

natural sources such as wildfires in the 

Upper Midwest. Minnesota considered 

the emission reductions expected from 

existing, voluntary projects, and 

additional control measures that will 

improve visibility through 2018, when 

the first RPGs apply. The existing and 

voluntary control measures considered 

are similar to what the state considered 

in setting its RPGs. The additional 

controls measures were considered by 

the Northern Class I areas group and are 

reasonably likely to be implemented. 

Minnesota believes that the control 

measures it considered are reasonable 

and that it will achieve its share of 

emission reductions to attain the RPGs 

at affected Class I areas. This includes 

obtaining its share of emission 

reduction for Boundary Waters and 

Voyageurs in addition to Class I areas 

outside the state. EPA concludes that 

Minnesota is implementing a reasonable 

progress plan that includes the 

measures that meet the criteria as 

reasonable measures. 

D. BART 

Minnesota conducted a BART 

analysis using the criteria in the BART 

Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 

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

BART-eligible sources are subject to 

BART, and determine the BART 

controls. Minnesota initially identified 

25 facilities with BART-eligible sources 

consisting of 11 EGUs, 2 petroleum 

refineries, 6 taconite ore processing 

plants, 2 sugar-processing facilities, 2 

kraft pulp mills, an iron and steel mill, 

and a secondary metal production 

facility. Minnesota performed sourcespecific analyses with the CALPUFF 

model to determine which units are 

subject to BART. The state selected a 

98th percentile 0.5 dv contribution 

threshold, consistent with EPA’s 

suggested threshold, because no 

conglomeration of sources existed to 

warrant a more stringent threshold and 

because Minnesota concluded that 0.5 

dv was an appropriate threshold for 

defining significant impact for BART 

purposes. Minnesota found that 11 

facilities have units subject to BART. 

Five EGUs and six taconite ore 

processing facilities have subject to 

BART units. The EGUs with subject to 

BART units include Minnesota Power 

Taconite Harbor and Boswell facilities, 

Northshore Mining’s Silver Bay, 

Rochester Public Utilities’ Silver Lake, 

and Xcel Energy’s Sherburne County 

(Sherco). The taconite ore processing 

facilities with subject to BART units are 

US Steel-Keewatin Taconite, Hibbing 

Taconite Company, US Steel-Minntac, 

United Taconite, ArcelorMittal, and 

Northshore Mining’s Silver Bay. 

Next, Minnesota determined the 

appropriate BART emission limits using 

the five-step BART determination 

process. The taconite facilities are 

unique, as only eight facilities exist 

nationally with six in northern 

Minnesota and two in Michigan’s Upper 

Peninsula. The taconite plants are over 

30 years old. The lack of new plants or 

retrofit projects gave Minnesota little 

knowledge of what emission limits are 

feasible and the cost effectiveness of 

potential control technologies, 

particularly for NOX control. 

Minnesota determined BART for NOX

emissions from taconite pellet furnaces 

as employing good combustion practices 

with process modifications such as lowNOX burners, ported kilns, and fuelefficient furnace design improvements. 

Minnesota required emission 

monitoring at the taconite facilities to 

learn what NOX emission rates can be 

achieved by these controls. Now, the 

state has used that data to set the NOX

emission rates for its taconite facilities. 

The facility specific BART 

determinations resulted in Minnesota 

selecting the following NOX emission 

limits as satisfying BART. All NOX

emission limits for the taconite facilities 

are based on a 30-day rolling average. 

The ArcelorMittal indurating furnace 

will use low-NOX burners and a furnace 

energy-efficiency project to reduce 

emissions to 1018 lb/hr. For Hibbing 

Taconite, the furnace energy-efficiency 

projects completed in 2005 and 2006 to 

produce a NOX BART limit of 447.4 lb/ 

hr on the Line 1 Pelletizing Furnace, 

571.7 lb/hr on the Line 2 furnace, and 

338.3 lb/hr on the Line 3 furnace. 

Keewatin Taconite’s Phase II Pelletizing 

Furnace will use fuel blending along 

with the existing controls to reduce NOX

emissions to 12.35 tons per day. US 

Steel-Minntac will use fuel blending on 

its pellet furnace Line 3 to achieve an 

emissions rate of 7.85 tons per day. 

Minntac will use low-NOX burners and 

fuel blending on Lines 4, 5, 6, and 7. 

The resulting NOX emission limits are 

9.85 tons per day on Line 4, 9.46 tons 

per day on Line 5, 7.14 tons per day on 

Line 6, and 5.51 tons per day on Line 

7. Northshore Silver Bay requires good 

combustion practices to limit NOX

emissions from Furnace 11 and Furnace 

12 to 115.5 lb/hr for each furnace, while 

Process Boilers #1 and #2 are limited to 

0.17 lb/MMBTU. Finally, United 

Taconite is required to operate with 

good combustion practices to obtain a 

NOX emission limit of 4.5 tons per day 

on Line 1 and 10.1 tons per day on 

Line 2. 

Minnesota determined that BART for 

PM emissions is complying with the 

taconite MACT for covered units. The 

taconite MACT establishes a PM10

emission limit of 0.01 grains per dry 

standard cubic foot for the pellet 

furnaces at all six taconite facilities. The 

taconite facilities already have PM 

controls to comply with the MACT 

standards. Northshore Silver Bay has 

wet-wall electrostatic precipitators, 

while the other five facilities operate 

wet scrubbers for PM control. Minnesota 

concluded that additional PM control 

would result in nominal visibility 

improvement, so complying with the 

taconite MACT represents BART control 

for PM. 

Minnesota determined that the wet 

scrubbers installed for PM control could 

be used to provide BART control of SO2

emissions at most of the taconite 

facilities, too. As with NOX emission 

control, Minnesota found it necessary to 

monitor SO2 emissions to be able to 

select the appropriate SO2 emission 

limits for some of the facilities. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3689 

Minnesota set the SO2 emission limit 

for the indurating furnace at 

ArcelorMittal at 0.165 lb/long ton (LT) 

of taconite pellets fired on a rolling 30- 

day average when combusting natural 

gas. The SO2 emission limits for Hibbing 

Taconite’s Line 1, 2, and 3 Pelletizing 

Furnaces each were set at 0.207 lb/LT as 

a 30-day rolling average. Minnesota 

determined that Keewatin Taconite is 

obtaining adequate SO2 control with its 

wet scrubbers. Thus, after reviewing the 

monitoring data, the State set an SO2

emission limit at 2.71 tons per day on 

a 30-day rolling average for the facility’s 

Phase II Pelletizing Furnace. US SteelMinntac operates five agglomerator 

lines—Lines 3 to 7. Minnesota set the 

SO2 BART emission limit for Line 3 at 

1.28 tons per day, Line 4 at 1.10 tons per 

day, and Line 5 at 1.10 tons per day. 

Lines 6 and 7 operate with ported kilns 

and combust coal in making fluxed 

pellets, so Minnesota needed additional 

monitoring data to set the SO2 emission 

limits for Lines 6 and 7 at 1.47 and 1.61 

tons per day respectively. The SO2

emission limits for US Steel-Minntac are 

for a rolling 30-day average. For the 

indurating furnaces at Northshore Silver 

Bay, Minnesota set a BART limit for SO2

emissions at 0.0651 lb/LT on a 30-day 

rolling average. United Taconite has two 

indurating furnaces, Lines 1 and 2. 

Minnesota determined that optimizing 

the wet scrubber for SO2 removal is 

BART control for Line 1 and set the SO2

emission limit at 106.3 tons as a 30-day 

rolling sum. Minnesota determined the 

SO2 emission limit for Line 2 is 197 tons 

as a 30-day rolling sum. United Taconite 

can meet the BART emission limit by 

either modifying its fuel blends, through 

operation of additional control 

equipment, or a combination of 

additional control with a lower sulfur 

fuel blend. Line 2 currently uses a blend 

of coal, petroleum coke, and natural gas. 

The BART analysis showed the 

installation and operation of a polishing 

scrubber as a viable BART control. 

Minnesota has provided some of the 

preceding BART emission limits on 

January 5, 2012 in proposed 

Administrative Orders. EPA cannot 

approve BART emission limits that are 

not federally enforceable. Thus, EPA 

cannot approve all of Minnesota’s BART 

emission limits until the limits are final 

in an enforceable form. Nevertheless, 

Minnesota has requested that EPA 

conduct ‘‘parallel processing,’’ in which 

EPA proposes the action it would take 

were the State to adopt its draft 

administrative orders in final form. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing that, 

provided Minnesota submits all of its 

BART emission limits in final 

Administrative Orders by the time EPA 

conducts final rulemaking, EPA will 

approve these administrative orders as 

satisfying BART for these sources. 

Minnesota initially did not perform 

BART determinations for the five 

subject to BART EGUs. This was 

because Minnesota was in the CAIR 

region and the state planned to meet its 

BART obligations through its 

participation in CAIR. CAIR was 

expected to control NOX and SO2

emissions from power plants, so 

Minnesota assessed the visibility 

impairment from PM for the subject to 

BART EGUs. Minnesota modeled each 

EGU and found the visibility 

impairment to be minor with the 

maximum impact of 0.16 dv from 

Northshore Silver Bay. Minnesota did 

not set PM emission limits for BART 

given this minor impact on visibility. 

Minnesota prepared BART 

determinations for NOX and SO2

emission control from its subject EGUs 

after CAIR was suspended for 

Minnesota. The BART determinations 

for the five subject to BART EGUs were 

included in the December 30, 2009, 

submission. 

EPA has analyzed the benefits of the 

Transport Rule in relation to the 

benefits of BART on EGUs that are 

subject to the Transport Rule. On 

December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82219), EPA 

proposed a rule finding that the 

Transport Rule is more beneficial in 

mitigating visibility impairment than 

application of BART to the affected 

EGUs on a source-specific basis. If the 

proposal is finalized, the Transport Rule 

may be considered to satisfy the 

requirement for BART for EGUs in 

Minnesota for SO2 and NOX. Minnesota 

requested on January 5, 2012 to use 

Transport Rule participation to satisfy 

BART for its EGUs. As set forth in the 

proposed rule, Transport Rule region 

states are able to use participation in the 

Transport Rule program as an 

alternative to implementing source 

specific BART on each subject EGU. 

EPA proposes to approve Minnesota’s 

reliance on the already promulgated 

Transport Rule FIP for EGU sources in 

Minnesota as an alternative to BART for 

SO2 and NOX for its EGUs. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing that if EPA finalizes 

the rule finding that the Transport Rule 

satisfies the BART requirement for 

EGUs for SO2 and NOX in Minnesota 

and elsewhere, then the combination of 

the Minnesota submission including 

BART for its taconite facilities and the 

Transport Rule will satisfy applicable 

requirements for BART. 

A RAVI petition was submitted to the 

FLMs on September 3, 2009. The US 

Department of Interior certified that a 

portion of the visibility impairment in 

Isle Royale National Park and Voyageurs 

National Park are caused by emissions 

from Sherco. Interior certified the 

petition on October 21, 2009. The RAVI 

rules at 40 CFR 51.302(c) require the 

determination of emission limits 

representing BART for certified 

facilities. A BART determination under 

the RAVI is similar to, but independent 

from the BART determination made 

under the RHR. EPA views Minnesota’s 

submittal as addressing regional haze as 

regulated under 40 CFR 51.308 and not 

RAVI as regulated under 40 CFR 51.302 

to 51.306. Therefore, this proposed rule 

only addresses satisfaction of regional 

haze requirements and does not address 

whether Minnesota’s plan addresses 

requirements that apply as a result of 

the certification of Sherco as a RAVI 

source. EPA will act on RAVI BART in 

a separate notice. 

E. LTS 

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

and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states’ regional 

haze programs must include a LTS for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting the national visibility goal. 

Section 51.308(d)(3) requires that 

Minnesota consult with the affected 

states in order to develop a coordinated 

emission management strategy. 

Minnesota must demonstrate that it has 

included, in its SIP, all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emissions reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the affected Class I areas. 

This includes Boundary Waters, 

Voyageurs, and Class I areas in other 

states that are affected by Minnesota 

sources. As described in section III.E., 

the LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures Minnesota will use to meet 

applicable RPGs. The LTS must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

RPGs for all affected Class I areas. 

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

identifies seven factors that a state must 

consider in developing its LTS: (A) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing 

programs, (B) measures to mitigate 

impact from construction, (C) emission 

limits to achieve the RPG, (D) 

replacement and retirement of sources, 

(E) smoke management techniques, (F) 

federally enforceable emission limits 

and control measures, and (G) the net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

emission changes over the LTS period. 

Minnesota considered the seven factors 

in developing its LTS. 

Minnesota considered these ongoing 

and expected programs in developing its 

LTS: CAIR; voluntary EGU projects due 

to Minnesota statue 216B.1692; BART; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3690 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Tier II mobile source standards; heavyduty diesel engine standards; low sulfur 

fuel; non-road mobile source control 

programs; and measures taken to attain 

the NAAQS. 

When Minnesota’s participation in 

the CAIR program was suspended, 

Minnesota began a process of working 

with its BART-eligible EGU sources to 

make BART determinations and put in 

place BART emission limits in the form 

of source-specific permits, taking into 

consideration the emission control 

projects that these sources had initiated 

in anticipation of being subject to CAIR 

and voluntary emission reduction 

projects that had been encouraged by 

Minnesota’s 216B.1692 statute that 

provides rate recovery for investments 

in pollution control. After EPA 

promulgated the Transport Rule and 

made known its plans to propose a rule 

that would allow Minnesota to rely on 

the Transport Rule to satisfy the BART 

requirements for SO2 and NOX for its 

EGUs, Minnesota changed course and is 

now requesting EPA approval for such 

reliance, as stated above, rather than 

seeking EPA approval of its sourcespecific SO2 and NOX emission limits as 

BART for BART-eligible EGUs. 

Nevertheless, Minnesota expects 

reductions from Minnesota Power— 

Boswell, Minnesota Power—Laskin, 

Minnesota Power—Taconite Harbor, 

Ottertail Power—Hoot Lake, Rochester 

Public Utilities—Silver Lake, Xcel 

Energy—Allen S. King, Xcel Energy— 

High Bridge, Xcel Energy—Riverside, 

Xcel Energy—Sherburne County 

because permits requiring emission 

reductions have been issued for these 

sources as a result of either the BART 

determination process or the voluntary 

emission reduction program. These 

reductions are part of Minnesota’s LTS. 

Other states that contribute to 

visibility impairment at Boundary 

Waters and Voyageurs must also reduce 

emissions from their BART sources. 

Minnesota incorporated the expected 

emission reductions due to BART in 

other states into its modeling. 

Additional emission reductions are 

expected from federal programs and 

from contributing states to attain the 

PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. Minnesota is 

in attainment of these NAAQS. 

Minnesota has addressed the 

requirement to consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities through the general and 

transportation conformity measures that 

are included in the Minnesota SIP. 

Minnesota also has Minnesota Rule 

7011.0150 that requires measures to 

prevent particulate matter from 

becoming airborne included in its SIP. 

The state is required to investigate if 

additional reasonable control strategies 

are available to help meet the visibility 

goal. As a result of its analysis of 

potential controls, Minnesota developed 

the Northeast Minnesota plan for 

emission reductions. The Northeastern 

portion of Minnesota contains the two 

Class I areas and a number of industrial 

sources. The sources include taconite 

facilities that mine and process a variety 

iron ore, which is an industry that is 

expected to expand in the future. The 

plan gives large sources in Carlton, 

Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and 

Saint Louis Counties region-wide 

emission reduction targets for 2018. 

Large sources are point sources in the 

region that emitted more than 100 TPY 

of either SO2 or NOX in 2002, the base 

line year. A list of these large sources is 

in Chapter 10 of the Minnesota regional 

haze plan. Newer sources that have a 

potential to emit more than 100 TPY of 

either pollutant are also included in the 

Northeast Minnesota plan. Minnesota 

focused on the emissions it can control. 

Minnesota divided the light extinction 

at Voyageurs into the difference 

pollutants based on their contribution. 

The state then removed the influence of 

natural pollutants and those beyond its 

control. Minnesota determined that it 

needed to control SO2 and NOX in the 

region and that a 28% reduction is 

needed to meet the URP. Thus, the 2018 

target was set at a 30% reduction in 

combined SO2 and NOX emission from 

Northeast Minnesota by 2018 with an 

intermediate target of a 20% reduction 

by 2012. The combined SO2 and NOX

emissions were 95,562 TPY in 2002, so 

a 30% reduction makes the 2018 goal 

66,894 TPY combined. Note that the 

Northeast Minnesota plan does not 

mandate emission reductions, but sets a 

region-wide emissions goal for the state 

to consider when setting emission limits 

to regional sources. 

Minnesota also included requirements 

in the Administrative Orders for the 

taconite facilities to demonstrate 

attainment for recently enacted NAAQS 

for SO2 and NOX. Each facility must 

provide Minnesota with modeling 

demonstrating compliance with the onehour SO2 and NOX standards, the 

emission limits that will result in 

compliance, the controls or work 

practices needed to meet the emission 

limits, and an implementation schedule. 

The taconite facilities are to comply 

with the emission limits by June 30, 

2017. Minnesota expects the 

requirements of the taconite facilities to 

result in indentifying emission control 

technologies that work well on their 

facilities. 

The visibility impacts of new major 

sources will be mitigated using the 

existing New Source Review (NSR) and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) programs. The PSD program 

requires sources to install stringent 

emission controls. New and modified 

sources need to consider the potential 

affect on visibility in Class I areas under 

the NSR and PSD programs. The regionwide emission targets in the Northeast 

Minnesota plan will aid the state in 

considering visibility impairment. 

Minnesota followed the requirement 

to consider source retirement and 

replacement schedules in developing 

the RPGs for its Class I areas. Minnesota 

has also developed a Smoke 

Management Plan that EPA certified 

October 27, 2004. The Minnesota Smoke 

Management Plan allows the state to 

meet the obligation to consider smoke 

management during the LTS 

development. Agricultural and 

silvicultural burning under the 

Minnesota Smoke Management Plan 

will limit the affects of the smoke on air 

quality including on visibility. A 

properly managed fire under the right 

meteorological conditions will help to 

protect public safety and will prevent 

deterioration of air quality. 

Minnesota must also make sure that 

the emission limits and control 

measures it is using to meet the RPGs 

are federally enforceable. Minnesota 

included its state rules in the regional 

haze plan. It also included 

Administrative Orders and permits. 

Other rules that Minnesota is relying on 

are already approved into the Minnesota 

SIP. EPA believes that control measures 

and emission limits will be federally 

enforceable upon final approval of the 

Minnesota regional haze plan. 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

The RHR requires a monitoring 

strategy for measuring, speciation, and 

reporting on visibility impairment that 

is representative of all mandatory Class 

I areas in the state. Minnesota 

participates in the IMPROVE network. 

IMPROVE monitors operate in both 

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. There 

are also IMPROVE protocol sites at Blue 

Mounds and Great River Bluffs in the 

southern portion of Minnesota. 

IMPROVE protocol sites follow the same 

monitoring protocol as IMPROVE site, 

but located outside mandatory Class I 

areas. Minnesota commits to reporting 

visibility data annually for its two Class 

I area. There are 10 IMPROVE sites and 

15 IMPROVE protocol sites within the 

CENRAP region. 

Minnesota also operates a monitoring 

network that provides data to analyze 

air quality problems including regional 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3691 

haze. The monitoring network includes 

Federal Reference Method, continuous, 

and speciation monitors. The speciation 

monitors that gather data on fine 

particulate composition includes the 

IMPROVE monitors along with two 

additional speciation sites in 

Minneapolis and Rochester. EPA finds 

that Minnesota’s regional haze plan 

meets the monitoring requirements for 

the RHR and that Minnesota’s network 

of monitoring sites is satisfactory to 

measure air quality in its Class I areas 

and assess its contribution to regional 

haze. 

G. Comments 

Minnesota offered the public an 

opportunity to comment on its proposed 

regional haze plan. Minnesota gave 

notice of a comment period on February 

25, 2008, that lasted until May 16, 2008. 

Minnesota held at public meeting on 

April 10, 2008. An addition comment 

period was given from July 20, 2009, to 

September 3, 2009 for revised portions 

of the plan. 

Minnesota included the original 

comment letters in its plan. The state 

also provided it responses to the 

comments. Minnesota made revisions to 

its proposed plans following the initial 

comment period. The revised portions 

of the plan included source-specific 

BART for EGUs (an element that 

Minnesota has now indicated that it will 

replace with reliance on the Transport 

Rule as an EPA-approved alternative to 

EGU BART), BART for taconite 

facilities, and its LTS. Minnesota 

provided the second comment period to 

receive public comment on the revised 

plan. Minnesota is taking public 

comment from December 19, 2011 to 

February 3, 2012. Minnesota will also 

take public comment at the March 27, 

2012 Citizens’ Board meeting. 

Minnesota has satisfied the 

requirements from 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V to provide evidence that it 

gave public notice, took comment, and 

that it compiled and responded to 

comments. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing action on a regional 

haze plan that Minnesota submitted on 

December 30, 2009, and supplemented 

on January 5, 2012. EPA is proposing to 

approve Minnesota’s State 

Implementation Plan addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period, provided it 

adopts and submits administrative 

orders consistent with its recent 

proposal of administrative orders. Full 

approval of the BART emission limits 

for the five EGUs is contingent on EPA’s 

finalization of the rule, proposed on 

December 30, 2011, finding that the 

Transport Rule provides greater 

visibility improvement that 

implementing BART. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1519 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0091, EPA–R03– 

OAR–2011–0584; FRL–9622–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Commonwealth of Virginia; Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval of 

six revisions to the Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Commonwealth of Virginia, through 

the Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ), that address regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

These revisions address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

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

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of these SIP revisions to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Virginia on the basis 

that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Virginia SIP. Also in this 

action, EPA is proposing a limited 

disapproval of these same SIP revisions 

because of the deficiencies in the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP 

submittal arising from the remand by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS