12770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

A detailed rationale for the approval is 

set forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: February 16, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4995 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0158; FRL–9639–6] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

Nebraska; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology Determination 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a 

revision to the Nebraska State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Nebraska through the 

Nebraska Department of Environmental 

Quality (NDEQ) on July 13, 2011 that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

was submitted to address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and our rules that require States 

to prevent any future and remedy any 

existing man-made impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

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

required to ensure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing to approve a 

portion of this SIP revision as meeting 

certain requirements of the regional 

haze program and to partially approve 

and partially disapprove those portions 

addressing the requirements for best 

available retrofit technology (BART) and 

the long-term strategy (LTS). EPA is 

proposing a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) relying on the Transport Rule 

to satisfy BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

at one source to address these issues. 

DATES: Comments. Written comments 

must be received via the methods given 

in the Instructions for Comment 

Submittal section on or before April 2, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Instructions for Comment 

Submittal. Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2012–0158, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Mail: Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

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

Kansas 66101. 

4. Hand or Courier Delivery: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

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

Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy 

Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are 

accepted only between the hours of 8 

a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

5. Fax: (913) 551–7864 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

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 we 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, we 

recommend 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 we 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, we may not be able 

to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and 

be free of any defects or viruses. For 

additional information about EPA’s 

public docket visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at www.epa.gov/ 

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning and Development 

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, 

Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

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

Kansas 66101, or by telephone at (913) 

551–7864. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

E. Long Term Strategy 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment Long-Term Strategy 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 12771 

1Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness 

of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, 

frequently due to runoff from the land, which 

causes a dense growth of plant life and death of 

animal life from lack of oxygen. 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

3Areas 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. See CAA 

section 162(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA 

section 162(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’’ (FLM). See CAA section 

302(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this 

action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

area.’’ 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

III. Our Analysis of Nebraska’s Regional Haze 

SIP 

A. Public Notice 

B. Affected Class I Areas 

C. Baseline and Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

a. Consultation on Other States’ RPGs 

F. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

a. BART-Eligible Sources 

b. BART-Subject Sources 

c. Particulate Matter (PM) Evaluation 

d. BART Determination for Omaha Public 

Power District (OPPD) Nebraska City 

Station (NCS) Unit 1 

e. BART Determination for Nebraska Public 

Power District (NPPD) Gerald Gentleman 

Station (GGS) Units 1 and 2 

f. BART Summary and Enforceability 

G. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) To 

Address SO2 BART for GGS and LTS 

H. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI 

I. Monitoring Strategy 

J. Emissions Inventory 

K. Federal Land Manager (FLM) 

Consultation 

L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year 

Progress Report 

IV. Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

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

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust) and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia 

(NH3) and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react 

in the atmosphere to form PM2.5 (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, and soil dust), which 

also impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 also can 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication.1

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 2 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 

1999). In most of the eastern Class I 

areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. Id. 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 3 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

CAA § 169A(a)(1). The terms 

‘‘impairment of visibility’’ and 

‘‘visibility impairment’’ are defined in 

the Act to include a reduction in visual 

range and atmospheric discoloration. 

CAA § 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we 

promulgated regulations to address 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 

that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a 

single source or small group of sources, 

i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084 

(December 2, 1980). These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. We 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 haze issues, and 

we promulgated regulations addressing 

regional haze in 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 

1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart P. The regional haze rule (RHR) 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulations provisions addressing RH 

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 our visibility protection regulations at 

40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main 

elements of the regional haze 

requirements are summarized in section 

II. The requirement to submit a regional 

haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the 

District of Columbia and the Virgin 

Islands. States were required to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing visibility impairment no 

later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 

51.308(b). 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

States, tribal governments and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to address 

effectively the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, States need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

haze can originate from sources located 

across broad geographic areas, we have 

encouraged the States and tribes across 

the United States to address visibility 

impairment from a regional perspective. 

Five regional planning organizations 

(RPOs) were developed to address 

regional haze and related issues. The 

RPOs first evaluated technical 

information to better understand how 

their States and tribes impact Class I 

areas across the country, and then 

pursued the development of regional 

strategies to reduce emissions of PM and 

other pollutants that cause haze. 

The State of Nebraska participated in 

the planning efforts of the Central 

Regional Air Planning Association 

(CENRAP), which is affiliated with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12772 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

5 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at 

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

envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘our 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’); and Guidance 

for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 

Rule, (EPA–454/B–03–004, September 2003, 

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

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred 

to as our ‘‘2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

Central States Air Resource Agencies 

(CENSARA). CENRAP is an organization 

of States, tribes, Federal agencies and 

other interested parties that identifies 

visibility issues and develops strategies 

to address them. CENRAP is one of the 

five RPOs across the U.S. and includes 

the States and tribal areas of Nebraska, 

Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, 

Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and 

Louisiana. States were also required by 

40 CFR 51.308(i) to coordinate with 

FLMs during the development of the 

State’s strategies to address haze. FLMs 

include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the 

National Park Service. 

II. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

The following is a summary and basic 

explanation of the regulations covered 

under the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for 

a complete listing of the regulations 

under which this SIP was evaluated. 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

CAA sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) 

require revisions to a SIP to be adopted 

by a State after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. EPA has promulgated 

specific procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area of a 

public hearing on proposed revisions, at 

least a 30-day public comment period, 

and the opportunity for a public 

hearing, and that the State, in 

accordance with its laws, submit the 

revision to the EPA for approval. 

Specific information on Nebraska’s 

rulemaking, regional haze SIP 

development and public information 

process is included in Chapter 3, and 

Appendix 3, of the State of Nebraska 

regional haze SIP, which is included in 

the docket of this proposed rulemaking. 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and our 

implementing regulations require States 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric for 

measuring visibility. See 70 FR 39104. 

This visibility metric expresses uniform 

changes in the degree of haze in terms 

of common increments across the entire 

range of visibility conditions, from 

pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 

Visibility expressed in deciviews is 

determined by using air quality 

measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithmic 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 of one deciview.4

The deciview is used in expressing 

Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 

(which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause haze. The national 

goal is a return to natural conditions, 

i.e., anthropogenic sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, States must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires States to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

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

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, States must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. We have provided guidance 

to States regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions.5

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, States are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

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

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

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

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. See 70 FR 3915; 

see also 64 FR 35714. The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for States to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

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

conditions. In setting RPGs, States must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. Id. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 12773 

6 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 

under the Regional Haze Program, June 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). 

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

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

8 In American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291 

F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2002), the U.S Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling 

vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the 

regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART 

guidelines to address the court’s ruling in that case. 

See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

9BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place 

between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and 

whose operations fall within one or more of 26 

specifically listed source categories. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in our RHR at 40 CFR 

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in our reasonable progress 

guidance.6 In setting the RPGs, States 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (referred to hereafter 

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

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress, which States are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each State with one or 

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

also consult with potentially 

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

States with emission sources that may 

be affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I State’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

States without Class I areas are 

required to submit regional haze SIPs to 

address their contribution to visibility 

impairment. As per the previous 

discussion in this proposed rulemaking, 

the ability of the long range transport of 

pollutants to affect visibility conditions 

in areas makes it imperative that each 

State evaluate how emissions from 

within its borders affect visibility 

impairment in Class I areas in other 

States. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

States to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources 

with the potential to emit greater than 

250 tons or more of any pollutant in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires States 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 7 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘best available retrofit technology’’ 

as determined by the State or us in the 

case of a plan promulgated under 

section 110(c) of the CAA. Under the 

RHR, States are directed to conduct 

BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, States also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

We promulgated regulations 

addressing regional haze in 1999, 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart P.8 These regulations 

require all States to submit 

implementation plans that, among other 

measures, contain either emission limits 

representing BART for certain sources 

constructed between 1962 and 1977, or 

alternative measures that provide for 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

40 CFR 51.308(e). 

On July 6, 2005, we 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. 70 FR 39104. In 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant 

with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts, a State must 

use the approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: first, 

States identify those sources which 

meet the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible 

source’’ set forth in 40 CFR 51.301;9

second, States determine whether such 

sources ‘‘emits any air pollutant which 

may reasonably be anticipated to cause 

or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART,’’) and; third, for each source 

subject to BART, States then identify the 

appropriate type and the level of control 

for reducing emissions. 

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. States 

should use their best judgment in 

determining whether volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) or ammonia 

compounds impair visibility in Class I 

areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, States 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The State must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the State should not be higher than 

0.5 dv (70 FR 39161). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

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

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. The term 

‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used in the 

BART Guidelines means the collection 

of individual emission units at a facility 

that together comprises the BARTeligible source. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that States consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a State 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of our approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

169(g)(4) and 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. See CAA 

section 110(a). 

As noted above, the RHR allows 

States to implement an alternative 

program in lieu of BART so long as the 

alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal than would BART. Under 

regulations issued in 2005 revising the 

regional haze program, EPA made just 

such a demonstration for the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR). See 70 FR 39104 

(July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations provide 

that States participating in the CAIR 

cap-and trade program under 40 CFR 

Part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved 

CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the 

CAIR FIP in 40 CFR Part 97 need not 

require affected BART-eligible electric 

generating units (EGUs) to install, 

operate, and maintain BART for 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 

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

address direct emissions of PM, States 

were still required to conduct a BART 

analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 

subject to BART for that pollutant. 

Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted 

in the remand of the rule to EPA. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(DC Cir. 2008). EPA issued a new rule 

in 2011 to address the interstate 

transport of NOX and SO2 in the eastern 

United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport Rule,’’ also 

known as the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA 

proposed to find that the trading 

programs in the Transport Rule would 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

towards the national goal than would 

BART in the States in which the 

Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. 

Based on this proposed finding, EPA 

also proposed to revise the RHR to allow 

States to substitute participation in the 

trading programs under the Transport 

Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has 

not taken final action on that rule. Also 

on December 30, 2011, the Circuit Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

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. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that States 

include in their regional haze SIP a ten 

to fifteen 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 any applicable 

RPGs. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within, or affected by emissions 

from, the State. 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 sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two States belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, States 

must describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs; (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; (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). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment Long-Term Strategy 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c), regarding the LTS for 

RAVI, to require that the RAVI plan 

must provide for a periodic review and 

SIP revision not less frequently than 

every three years until the date of 

submission of the State’s first plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment 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 toward 

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 

regional haze and RAVI impairment. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of 

visibility impairment that is 

representative of all Class I areas within 

the State. The strategy must be 

coordinated with the monitoring 

strategy required in section 51.305 for 

RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network, i.e., 

review and use of monitoring data from 

the network. The monitoring strategy is 

due with the first regional haze SIP, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 12775 

10Other Class I areas examined include Great 

Sand Dunes National Park and Rocky Mountain 

National Park in Colorado; Boundary Waters 

Wilderness Area and Voyagers National Park in 

Minnesota; Guadalupe Mountains National Park 

and Big Bend National Park in Texas; Wichita 

Mountains Wilderness Area in Oklahoma; HerculesGlades Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness 

Area in Missouri; and Caney Creek Wilderness Area 

and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area in Arkansas. 

it must be reviewed every five (5) years. 

The monitoring strategy must also 

provide for additional monitoring sites 

if the IMPROVE network is not 

sufficient to determine whether RPGs 

will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a State 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the State to haze visibility 

impairment at Class I areas both within 

and outside the State; 

• For a State with no mandatory Class 

I areas, procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information to determine 

the contribution of emissions from 

within the State to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other States; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the State, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions, along 

with 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 ten years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that States consult 

with other States and 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 sixty 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. 

III. Our Analysis of Nebraska’s 

Regional Haze SIP 

The State of Nebraska submitted a 

regional haze SIP revision to EPA on 

July 13, 2011 for approval into the 

Nebraska SIP. The following is an 

evaluation of that submission. See the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

this proposal for a more comprehensive 

technical analysis. 

A. Public Notice 

EPA is proposing to find that the State 

of Nebraska has met the requirements of 

the CAA which require that the State 

adopt a SIP after reasonable notice and 

public hearing. EPA also believes that 

the State has met the specific procedural 

requirements for SIP revisions 

promulgated at 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

F and appendix V. The State met these 

requirements by publishing notices of 

the public hearing, an opportunity for a 

public hearing, and at least a thirty-day 

public comment period by prominent 

advertisement, and Nebraska, in 

accordance with its laws, submitted the 

revisions on July 13, 2011, to EPA for 

approval. Specific information on 

Nebraska’s rulemaking, regional haze 

SIP development and public 

information process is included in 

Chapter 3, and Appendix 3, of the State 

of Nebraska’s regional haze SIP, which 

is included in the docket of this 

proposed rulemaking. 

B. Affected Class I Areas 

Although there are no Class I areas 

within the State of Nebraska, the State 

is still required to identify those Class 

I areas which may be affected by 

emissions from Nebraska sources. 

Nebraska participated in the planning 

efforts of CENRAP, an RPO including 

nine States—Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, 

Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, 

Arkansas, and Louisiana. CENRAP and 

its contractors provided air quality 

modeling to the States to help them 

determine whether sources located 

within the State can be reasonably 

expected to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. 

The modeling conducted relied on 

baseline year (2002) and future planning 

year (2018) emissions inventories that 

were prepared with participation from 

each of the CENRAP States. The 

modeling was based on PM Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) for 

the Comprehensive Air Quality Model 

with extensions (CAMx) photochemical 

model. 

According to the PSAT modeling, 

contributions from Nebraska sources for 

the worst 20 percent days were highest 

at the South Dakota Class I areas. For 

the 2002 baseline year, Nebraska 

sources were projected to contribute 

7.81 percent of visibility impairment at 

Badlands, and 7 percent at Wind Cave. 

In 2018, the projected contribution was 

reduced to 5.89 percent and 5.24 

percent, respectively. However, it is 

critical to note that the 2018 projections 

were developed assuming presumptive 

levels of SO2 control on Nebraska BART 

sources, which ultimately the State did 

not require. For that reason, it is likely 

that Nebraska sources will have a 

somewhat larger contribution to 2018 

visibility impairment than what the 

modeling predicted. 

Nebraska’s contribution to all other 

Class I areas was considerably less, and 

in no case greater than 1.9 percent in 

2002 according to the PSAT modeling.10

C. Baseline and Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

States that host Class I areas are 

required to estimate the baseline, 

natural and current visibility conditions 

of those Class I areas. Nebraska does not 

host a Class I area, therefore, it is not 

required to estimate these metrics. 

D. Reasonable Progress Goals 

The RHR requires States and tribes to 

establish a RPG for each Class I area 

within the State. Nebraska does not 

have a Class I area within the State and 

therefore is not required to establish a 

RPG. States hosting Class I areas are 

required to establish RPGs, and to make 

assessments regarding whether emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11 GGS’s maximum visibility impact at Badlands 

was 3.12 dv in 2003, and 2.59 dv at Wind Cave in 

2002. 

12Source-specific CALPUFF modeling for 

Nebraska City Station and Gerald Gentleman 

Station is in appendix 10.5 of the SIP. 

13 76 FR 76646 (December 8, 2011). 

reductions are needed from sources in 

Nebraska in order to meet their RPG. 

Specific State goals and Nebraska’s 

effect on meeting them are described in 

further detail in the LTS consultation 

section, below. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

States must submit a long-term 

strategy that addresses regional haze 

visibility impairment for each Class I 

area within it and for each Class I area 

located outside it which may be affected 

by emissions from it. The long-term 

strategy must include enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals established by States 

having Class I areas. 

Nebraska’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from Federal, 

State, and local controls that take effect 

in the State from the end of the baseline 

period until 2018. As described 

elsewhere in this notice, the changes in 

point, area, and mobile source 

emissions over the first implementation 

period (through 2018) were taken into 

account by CENRAP and the State in 

developing the emission inventory for 

2018. Specifically, Nebraska considered 

the following Federal and State control 

measures when developing its LTS: 

• CAIR. Although the State of 

Nebraska was not included in the CAIR 

rulemaking, the rule was a major 

component in the underlying 

assumptions used to determine source 

apportionment because of the 

reductions expected in neighboring 

States. 

• Federal mobile source standards 

• Tier 2 vehicle standards and low 

sulfur fuel requirements 

• Locomotive and marine engine 

standards 

• Small spark-ignition engine 

standards 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards 

• Nebraska’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) construction 

permitting program. Nebraska notes that 

the visibility protection provisions of 

PSD found at 40 CFR 52.21(o) have been 

incorporated into Title 129—Nebraska 

Air Quality Regulations at Chapter 19. 

Section 40 CFR 52.21(p) requires 

notification and consultation with FLMs 

of Class I areas which may be affected 

by emissions from a new source; these 

requirements under have been 

incorporated by reference into Title 129 

in Chapter 19. 

Nebraska has fugitive dust regulations 

in Nebraska Title 129—Chapter 32, 

which includes a provision applicable 

to construction activities. The rule 

requires the use of reasonable measures 

such as paving, cleaning, application of 

water, planting and maintenance of 

ground cover, and/or application of 

dust-free surfactants to prevent dust 

from becoming airborne such that it 

remains visible beyond the property 

boundary. Nebraska estimates that 

construction activities are not expected 

to cause a significant impact to 

visibility, and did not require any 

additional measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities for 

purposes of visibility improvement. 

Nebraska also has regulations that 

address smoke management for 

agricultural and forestry management 

burns. Title 129—Chapter 30 is a ban on 

open burning with some direct 

exceptions that include agriculture 

operations, parks management, and fires 

set for training purposes. Other types of 

exceptions are subject to approval by 

the NDEQ and the local fire authority. 

For purposes of forestry or land 

management, such burning is allowed 

provided it is conducted by a limited set 

of organizations approved by NDEQ. 

Nebraska contends that, based on the 

minimal impacts on nearby Class I areas 

from burning, a more stringent smoke 

management plan is not needed for 

purposes of visibility protection at this 

time. 

The above 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. Enforceability of Nebraska’s 

BART control measures are more fully 

described below in section III.F. 

a. Consultation on Other States’ RPGs 

Where Nebraska has emissions that 

are reasonably anticipated to contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area located in another State or States, 

it must consult with the other State(s) in 

order to develop coordinated emission 

management strategies. If Nebraska 

causes or contributes to impairment in 

a Class I area, it must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

progress goal for the area. 

As mentioned previously, Nebraska 

participated in the CENRAP planning 

process, which provided the primary 

venue for State consultation and 

coordination on emission management 

strategies. Nebraska also asserts that it 

notified the States of South Dakota, 

Oklahoma, Missouri and Colorado while 

its draft BART permits were open for 

public comment, proposing only control 

for NOX at the three BART units in the 

State. It should be noted that although 

Nebraska participated as a member State 

in CENRAP, the greatest impacts from 

Nebraska sources occur in a Western 

Regional Area Partnership (WRAP) 

State—South Dakota. 

South Dakota 

Nebraska asserts that sources in the 

State have a ‘‘minimal’’ visibility impact 

on all Class I areas, and points out in its 

SIP that no State asked Nebraska for 

specific emission reductions in order to 

meet its RPGs. We disagree with the 

characterization of Nebraska’s 

contribution as minimal, as sourcespecific CALPUFF modeling shows a 

significant visibility impact from GGS 

on the South Dakota Class I areas.11 12

Furthermore, we note that South 

Dakota’s reasonable progress goals, 

which are proposed for approval by EPA 

at the time of this writing, achieve less 

visibility improvement than the uniform 

rate of progress for the first 

implementation period. The reasonable 

progress goals for the 20 percent worst 

days fall short of the uniform rate of 

progress by 1.28 dv for Badlands and 

1.34 dv at Wind Cave.13 The modeling 

used to estimate achievement of these 

goals assumed that the presumptive 

level of SO2 BART controls would be 

installed on Nebraska sources. Nebraska 

did not go on to require BART-level 

controls, therefore, South Dakota may be 

even further away from meeting its 

RPGs than what the modeling predicted. 

As described in detail in section III. F. 

d. of this notice, we propose to 

disapprove Nebraska’s SO2 BART 

determination for GGS. We also propose 

to disapprove Nebraska’s LTS insofar as 

it relied on this deficient BART 

determination. These issues are 

addressed through reliance on the 

Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for SO2 emissions from the GGS 

units. 

Colorado 

In comment letters dated January 21, 

2011, and June 23, 2009, the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) notes that 

according to source-specific CALPUFF 

modeling, GGS has an impact of greater 

than one deciview on Rocky Mountain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 12777 

14Appendix 11.1 of the SIP 

15Appendix 11.3 of the SIP. 

16Appendix 11.2 of the SIP. 

17BART guidelines, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y. 

. 

National Park (RMNP). CDPHE 

questioned why Nebraska would 

propose no SO2 controls for such a large 

power plant, and requested that 

Nebraska take another look at the cost 

assumptions made for Flue Gas 

Desulfurization (FGD) controls. They 

express that $2,700 per ton for control 

of SO2 is reasonable, and that the cost 

is likely even lower. 

CDPHE commented that it 

understands Nebraska’s concerns about 

water availability in western Nebraska, 

as the State of Colorado is also in an arid 

region. They state that all large EGUs in 

Colorado have installed (or are in the 

process of installing) FGD controls to 

reduce SO2 emissions. 

CDPHE goes on to note that the most 

recent WRAP modeling, which used the 

CMAQ model, predicts that RMNP is far 

short of its uniform rate of progress. 

CDPHE asked that Nebraska reconsider 

SO2 controls at GGS under the RHR to 

help Colorado make progress at RMNP. 

Nebraska denies this request in their 

SIP on the basis that WRAP’s modeling 

did not distinguish Nebraska’s impact 

from the other CENRAP States. 

Nebraska makes the argument that a 

wind rose from RMNP indicates that the 

wind pattern is rarely from the direction 

of Nebraska. 

We share Colorado’s concerns about 

the SO2 BART determination for GGS, 

and as described above, we are 

proposing to disapprove this deficient 

BART determination and Nebraska’s 

LTS insofar as the State relied on it to 

meet the LTS requirements. We propose 

that these issues will be addressed 

through reliance on the Transport Rule 

as an alternative to BART for SO2

emissions from the GGS units. 

Minnesota 

Boundary Waters, Voyageurs, Seney, 

and Isle Royale are referred to as the 

Northern Midwest Class I areas. As 

identified in the document, ‘‘Reasonable 

Progress for Class I Areas in the 

Northern Midwest—Factor Analysis,’’ 14

the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO) identified the 

following States contributing to Class I 

area visibility impairment in the 

LADCO region: Michigan, Minnesota, 

and Wisconsin, as well as surrounding 

States, such as the Dakotas, Iowa, 

Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. 

Nebraska does not significantly 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

the Minnesota Class I areas according to 

PSAT modeling. Through RPO 

consultation, Minnesota determined 

that no additional emissions reductions 

from Nebraska sources were needed to 

meet Class I area visibility improvement 

goals at this point in time. EPA believes 

that this satisfies the requirement for 

consultation between these States. 

Oklahoma 

As identified in the document titled, 

‘‘Oklahoma‘s Wichita Mountains 

Wilderness Area Regional Haze 

Planning,’’ 15 Oklahoma identified 

Nebraska in its area of influence for 

NOX. Nebraska was initially invited to 

participate in the Oklahoma 

consultation process. Nebraska states 

that it provided copies of the draft 

BART permits to the State of Oklahoma 

while on public notice, which only 

proposed NOX controls on OPPD and 

NPPD. Oklahoma did not provide any 

comment, or request additional controls 

for the initial planning period. EPA 

believes that the consultation 

requirement between these States has 

been satisfied. 

Missouri and Arkansas 

Caney Creek, Upper Buffalo, Hercules 

Glades, and Mingo are referred to as the 

central Class I areas. As identified in the 

document, ‘‘Central Class I Areas 

Consultation Plan,’’ 16 CENRAP 

identified Nebraska in the area of 

influence for NOX at the central Class I 

areas. The central States determined 

whether a State was a major contributor 

based on an analysis of four approaches: 

trajectories, areas of influence, PSAT, 

and Q/d. If a State was found to be a 

major contributor in at least 3 of the 4 

approaches, the central States 

concluded it was appropriate to include 

that State as a major contributor. 

Nebraska was found to be a contributor 

based upon the area of influence only, 

therefore it was excluded as a major 

contributing State to visibility 

impairment in Class I areas in Missouri 

and Arkansas. EPA believes that 

Nebraska’s consultation requirement 

with these States was satisfied. 

F. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

States must submit an 

implementation plan containing 

emission limitations representing BART 

and schedules for compliance with 

BART for each BART-eligible source 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any impairment 

of visibility in any Class I area. 

a. BART-Eligible Sources 

States must identify all BART-eligible 

sources in their SIP. Sources are subject 

to BART if: One or more emissions units 

at the facility belong to one of the 

twenty-six BART source categories 17; 

the unit did not operate before August 

7, 1962, but was in existence on August 

7, 1977; and the unit has the potential 

to emit 250 tons per year or more of any 

visibility-impairing pollutant, which 

Nebraska determined to be SO2, NOX, 

and PM. 

The BART Guidelines direct States to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOCs and ammonia (NH3) impair 

visibility in their Class I area(s). 70 FR 

391160. CENRAP performed analyses 

which demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

CENRAP region. Therefore, Nebraska 

did not consider NH3 among visibilityimpairing pollutants and did not further 

evaluate NH3 and VOC emissions 

sources for potential controls under 

BART or reasonable progress. 

Nebraska used its database to identify 

facilities with emission units in one or 

more of the twenty six BART categories. 

Nebraska then conducted a survey to 

identify units within these source 

categories with potential emissions of 

250 tons per year or more for any 

visibility-impairing pollutant from any 

unit that was in existence on August 7, 

1977, and began operation after August 

7, 1962. The sources identified by 

Nebraska are listed in Table 1. More 

detailed information regarding each 

facility’s BART-eligible units may be 

found in Appendix 10.2 of the SIP. 

EPA proposes to find that Nebraska 

adequately identified all BART-eligible 

sources within the State. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12778 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18One exception—Nebraska conducted modeling 

for the Lon D. Wright Power Plant. 

19http://www.powermag.com/coal/Top-PlantsNebraska-City-Station-Unit-2-Nebraska-CityNebraska_2179_p4.html, accessed February 7, 2012. 

TABLE 1—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN NEBRASKA

Source category Facility Location 

Number of 

emission units 

identified by 

date 

Potential to emit 

(date-eligible units, tons per year) 

PM NOX SO2

Fossil-fuel fired steam electric 

plants of more than 250 million 

BTU per hour heat input.

NPPD Gerald 

Gentlemen 

Station.

Sutherland ......... 2 4,460 46,200 79,200 

OPPD Nebraska 

City.

Nebraska City .... 1 43,792 19,040 45,696 

OPPD North 

Omaha Station.

Omaha ............... 2 910 14,420 34,283 

NPPD Sheldon 

Station.

Hallam ................ 2 908 6,020 15,100 

CW Burdick Generating Station.Grand Island ...... 2 997 1,923 10,304 

Lon D. Wright 

Power Plant.

Fremont ............. 2 97 3,784 3,035 

Don Henry 

Power Center.

Hastings ............. 1 19 1,360 780 

North Denver 

Station.

Hastings ............. 1 14 426 853 

Portland cement plant ..................... Ash Grove Cement.Louisville ............ 7 528 2,373 3,182 

Chemical process plant; fossil-fuel 

boilers; hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and 

nitric acid plant.

Beatrice Nitrogen 

Plant.

Beatrice .............. 18 48 924 5 

b. BART-Subject Sources 

Nebraska then screened out some 

BART-eligible sources from being 

subject to BART on the basis that they 

do not cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in a Class I area. Nebraska 

selected a contribution threshold of 0.5 

deciviews based on the 98th percentile 

of daily modeled visibility impact over 

an annual period because it is consistent 

with the Guidelines, no BART-eligible 

sources are near Class I areas, and there 

are no significant clusters of BARTeligible sources in the State. Nebraska 

required the owner of each BARTeligible source to conduct dispersion 

modeling using the CALPUFF model 

and submit the results to Nebraska.18

The CALPUFF modeling protocol is 

included in Appendix 10.3 of the SIP. 

Nebraska identified eight sources with 

impacts less than 0.5 deciviews, and 

were therefore determined not to be 

BART-subject: Beatrice Nitrogen Plant; 

Ash Grove Cement; Don Henry Power 

Center; Lon D. Wright Power Plant; CW 

Burdick Generating Station; North 

Denver Station; NPPD Sheldon Station; 

and OPPD North Omaha Station. 

Two facilities had impacts greater 

than 0.5 deciviews, and were therefore 

determined to be BART-subject: OPPD 

NCS Station Unit 1 and NPPD GGS 

Units 1 and 2. EPA proposes to find that 

Nebraska adequately determined which 

sources in the State were subject to 

BART. 

c. Particulate Matter (PM) Evaluation 

Nebraska used source-specific 

CALPUFF modeling to examine the 

relative contribution of PM, NOX, and 

SO2 emissions to visibility impairment. 

For NCS Unit 1, direct PM emissions 

only accounted for 0.32 percent of 

impairment in the most impaired year, 

2001, at the closest Class I area, 

Hercules Glades. Nebraska concluded 

that direct PM emissions from NCS do 

not significantly contribute to visibility 

impairment, and therefore, a full five 

factor BART analysis for PM was not 

needed. 

For GGS Units 1 and 2, direct PM 

emissions only accounted for 0.69 

percent of impairment on the most 

impaired year, 2003, at the closest Class 

I area, Badlands. Nebraska concluded 

that direct PM emissions from GGS do 

not significantly contribute to visibility 

impairment, and therefore, a full five 

factor BART analysis for PM was not 

needed. 

EPA agrees with these conclusions. 

d. BART Determination for Omaha 

Public Power District (OPPD) Nebraska 

City Station (NCS) Unit 1 

Nebraska and EPA have reached 

different conclusions as to whether NCS 

Unit 1 is located at a power plant with 

a generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts (MW), or not. If NCS falls 

within this category of sources, then the 

BART Guidelines must be followed in 

determining BART limits and the 

presumptive limits in the Guidelines 

would apply. See CAA section 169A(b). 

In September 2008, Nebraska asked EPA 

for clarification on whether recently 

permitted units, such as NCS Unit 2, 

should be included in the total plant 

capacity for purposes of applying 

presumptive BART. In a response dated 

November 7, 2008, we indicated it is 

reasonable to interpret the RHR to mean 

that if the plant capacity is greater than 

750 MW at the time the BART 

determination is made by the State (i.e., 

at the time the State places the BART 

determination on public notice), then 

the power plant is a facility ‘‘having a 

total generating capacity in excess of 

750 [MW]’’ and any unit at the plant 

greater than 200 MW is subject to 

presumptive BART. 

The groundbreaking for construction 

of NCS Unit 2 was September 13, 2005. 

Nebraska put the NCS Unit 1 BART 

permit on public notice on December 

12, 2008. Unit 2 was operational on May 

1, 2009.19 Nebraska concluded that 

because NCS Unit 2 was not operational 

at the time of the BART determination 

for Unit 1, its capacity did not count 

towards the 750 MW threshold, and 

therefore, it was not mandatory for 

Nebraska to follow 40 CFR 51 Appendix 

Y in making the BART determination. 

We concede that there is some 

question as to whether the NCS Unit 1 

is a presumptive unit, requiring use of 

the BART Guidelines, or not. 

Regardless, Nebraska did proceed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 12779 

20Our use of the word average in this section 

means averaging the 98th percentile impact for each 

of the three baseline years, 2001–2003. 

21 Improvement from the addition of SCR at 

Wichita Mountains was not provided by NDEQ in 

the SIP. 

22Nebraska assumed the same cost regardless of 

the level of control (0.15 or 0.10 lb/MMBtu); 

however, a higher level of control would likely have 

a slightly higher cost. 

23Nebraska only provided visibility information 

for the most impacted year for the 0.10 lb/MMBtu 

rate; therefore, this improvement is maximum, not 

average. 

24Nebraska did not provide modeling 

information for FGD at a rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu 

combined with LNB/OFA, so that level of control 

cannot be fully evaluated. 

25EPA is not including any cost of the loss of 

agricultural revenue in this estimation. 

through a basic step-wise analysis of the 

costs and visibility impacts of available 

controls. 

NCS Unit 1 has existing overfire air 

(OFA), so in determining BART for NOX

at NCS unit 1, Nebraska considered low 

NOX burners (LNB) and selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR). Selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) was 

determined to be technically infeasible 

due to high furnace exit temperatures. 

The cost effectiveness of LNB/OFA at a 

rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu was $166 per 

ton; the cost effectiveness of LNB/OFA 

plus SCR at a rate of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu 

was $2,611 per ton. 

NCS Unit 1 impacts Hercules Glades 

in Missouri and Wichita Mountains in 

Oklahoma an average of 0.65 dv and 

0.46 dv, respectively.20 Installing LNB 

with OFA offers an average 

improvement of 0.22 dv at Hercules 

Glades and 0.12 dv at Wichita 

Mountains. The addition of SCR would 

provide an additional 0.17 dv of 

improvement at Hercules Glades,21 but 

because of the high incremental cost of 

$8,203 per ton and the level of visibility 

improvement, it was not chosen as 

BART. Nebraska determined BART for 

NOX at NCS unit 1 to be LNB with OFA 

at a rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu. EPA agrees 

that the State’s determination is 

reasonable given the relatively 

insignificant additional visibility 

improvement associated with SCR for 

the additional cost. 

For SO2 control at NCS, Nebraska 

evaluated both dry and wet FGD. 

Nebraska concluded that dry FGD (spray 

dryer absorber (SDA)) has lower capital 

and operating costs than wet FGD and 

can achieve a similar control efficiency; 

it thus focused its cost analysis on dry 

FGD. We note that Nebraska did not 

evaluate Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) as 

a potential SO2 control for NCS Unit 1. 

Since DSI can generally achieve the 

same control efficiency as FGD, we 

believe that the State has appropriately 

evaluated the level of controls in its 

analysis. 

The costs per ton for dry FGD were 

reasonable both at a rate of 0.15 lbs/ 

MMBtu ($1,759 per ton) and 0.10 lbs/ 

MMBtu ($1,636 per ton).22 The visibility 

improvement at Hercules Glades from 

dry FGD was 0.25 dv and 0.44 dv 23, 

respectively. The visibility 

improvement of adding FGD at a rate of 

0.15 lb/MMBtu to the LNB/OFA system 

required as BART for NOX is 0.25 dv.24

Nebraska determined that the minimal 

visibility improvement from installation 

of FGD at NCS Unit 1 did not warrant 

the additional cost ($34,770,000 or 

$1,759 per ton); therefore, no SO2

controls were proposed as BART for 

NCS Unit 1. EPA agrees that the State’s 

determination is not unreasonable given 

the minimal additional visibility 

improvement. 

e. BART Determination for Nebraska 

Public Power District (NPPD) Gerald 

Gentleman Station (GGS) Units 1 and 2 

Nebraska evaluated LNB with OFA 

and SCR for NOX control at GGS. In 

2006, NPPD installed LNB and OFA at 

Unit 1, but since this was after the 

2001–2003 baseline modeling period, it 

was still evaluated in the BART 

analysis. SNCR was determined to be 

technically infeasible due to high 

furnace exit temperatures. LNB with 

OFA (at a rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu) had 

a cost effectiveness of $198 per ton, and 

LNB with OFA and SCR (at a rate of 

0.08 lbs/MMBtu) had a cost 

effectiveness of $2,297 per ton. 

GGS affects six Class I areas greater 

than 0.5 dv on average: Badlands and 

Wind Cave in South Dakota; Wichita 

Mountains in Oklahoma; Rocky 

Mountain in Colorado; and Hercules 

Glades and Mingo in Missouri. GGS has 

a cumulative baseline impact on these 

six Class I areas of 8.86 dv. 

LNB plus OFA offers an improvement 

at Badlands (the closest and most 

affected Class I area) of 0.66 dv, and 

1.94 dv cumulatively. The addition of 

SCR offers an incremental improvement 

of 0.49 dv at Badlands, and 1.27 dv 

cumulatively. Nebraska concluded that 

based on the relatively low incremental 

visibility improvement of adding SCR to 

the LNB/OFA system for the additional 

cost ($5,445 incremental cost per ton), 

requiring SCR as BART was not 

warranted. NOX BART for GGS was 

determined to be the installation of 

LNB/OFA with an emission limitation 

of 0.23 lbs NOX/MMBtu, averaged 

across the two units. EPA agrees that the 

State’s NOX BART determination for 

GGS is reasonable. 

Nebraska evaluated wet and dry FGD 

and Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) for SO2

controls at GGS. All control options 

were evaluated at the presumptive rate 

of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. The cost 

effectiveness for dry and wet FGD was 

nearly identical at $2,726 per ton and 

$2,724 per ton, respectively; the cost 

effectiveness of DSI was $2,058 per ton. 

All of these controls were determined 

by Nebraska to be reasonable on a cost 

per ton basis. 

The visibility improvement from 

these controls operated at a rate of 0.15 

lbs/MMBtu is significant: an average of 

0.86 dv from DSI, and an average of 0.78 

dv from FGD at Badlands. The 

cumulative improvement is even 

greater; FGD control would offer an 

improvement of 3.17 dv across the six 

Class I areas that GGS affects. Nebraska 

only provided visibility information for 

DSI at Badlands; therefore, the 

cumulative benefit of DSI is unknown. 

Nebraska raises water use of wet and 

dry FGD as a significant non-air 

environmental impact. In its SIP, 

Nebraska presents a description of the 

over-appropriation of water resources in 

the western part of Nebraska, where 

GGS is located. The State described that 

this over-appropriation means that any 

new use of groundwater requires an 

offset in water consumption in the same 

area. To do this, NPPD would have to 

purchase the groundwater rights from 

surrounding landowners. Nebraska did 

not include the cost of obtaining these 

groundwater rights in the original BART 

analysis costs; however, in the narrative 

portion of the SIP, Nebraska describes 

both the costs of obtaining groundwater, 

and the loss of agricultural revenue due 

to taking land out of agricultural 

production. Nebraska concludes that the 

cost of obtaining water to operate wet 

FGD would add approximately 8.6 

percent to the cost of controls. If these 

costs were added into the BART 

analysis, it would only increase the cost 

of control by $234 per ton. This brings 

the cost per ton to $2,958, which EPA 

believes is still a reasonable cost of 

control over both units.25

In the SIP, Nebraska says that it used 

a $40,000,000/yr/dv threshold for 

determining what would be considered 

a reasonable investment for visibility 

improvement. They concluded that the 

costs of FGD control were reasonable on 

a cost per ton basis, but not on a dollars 

per deciview basis. Furthermore, 

Nebraska sees the water consumption of 

FGD controls as significant, and 

concludes that because of this unique 

situation, FGD controls are 

unreasonable for GGS Units 1 and 2. 

Nebraska concludes that BART is no 

SO2 controls at GGS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12780 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

26EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA/452/B–02–001, January 2002. 

27 (0.749 lbs/MMBtu) * (15,175 MMBtu/hr) * 

(8,760 hrs/yr) * (ton/2,000 lbs) = 49,785 tons/yr. 

28http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ 

index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard. 

29See Attachment B to our TSD. Based on adding 

the station total pounds of SO2 emissions from 

2001–2003 and dividing by the station total heat 

input from 2001–2003. 

30 (39,815/49,785) * 31,513 = 25,202. 

31Response to Technical Comments for Sections 

E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice for the 

Oklahoma Regional Haze and Visibility Transport 

Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA– 

R06–OAR–2010–0190, 12/13/2011, Section II., 

Comments Relating to Our SO2 BART Emission 

Limit, and elsewhere. 

EPA disagrees with this conclusion. 

Using Nebraska’s analysis, we agree that 

the cost per ton for FGD control is 

reasonable, and Nebraska’s analysis 

shows significant visibility 

improvement, both at Badlands and on 

a cumulative basis. We also believe that 

Nebraska inappropriately ruled out DSI. 

Costs for the control are reasonable at 

$2,058 per ton and visibility 

improvement at Badlands is significant 

at 0.86 dv. Furthermore, DSI does not 

consume as much water as does FGD. 

Finally, even though the cost of FGD 

controls is reasonable, we believe that 

the costs of FGD control are 

overestimated. This is described in 

detail in the TSD to this notice. EPA 

conducted an independent review of the 

cost information presented by Nebraska 

in its BART analysis for dry scrubbers. 

We found several errors and deviations 

from EPA’s Cost Control Manual.26 Cost 

categories in which we found significant 

errors or deviations include: 

Engineering Procurement and 

Construction; Bond Fees; Escalation; 

Contingency; Allowance for Funds Used 

During Construction; Capital Recovery 

Factor; and Operation and Maintenance. 

We also found that Nebraska 

incorrectly calculated the SO2 emission 

rates. On page 15 of its BART analysis, 

NPPD calculates its SO2 emission 

baseline based on applying a 24-hour 

maximum emission rate of 0.749 lbs/ 

MMBtu (2001–2003) to a maximum heat 

input of 15,175.5 MMBtu/hr, based on 

a 100 percent capacity factor. This 

results in an emissions baseline of 

49,785 tons/year.27 We believe this 

calculation does not appropriately 

represent GGS’s SO2 emission baseline, 

and is in fact too high. We have 

downloaded emissions data for GGS 

from our Clean Air Markets Web site,28

and using the same emissions data from 

the three year averaging period of 2001– 

2003, we have calculated the three year 

average annual SO2 emissions for units 

1 and 2 of the GGS to be 0.565 lbs/ 

MMBtu.29 Reducing this to a controlled 

SO2 emissions level of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu 

results in a control efficiency of 

approximately 73.5 percent. Applying 

this level of control to our adjusted GGS 

SO2 emission baseline of 31,513 tons/ 

year would reduce it to 8,366 tons/yr, 

resulting in a reduction of 23,147 tons 

of SO2 annually. Applying the same 

approximate 80 percent level of 

reduction GGS assumes to our adjusted 

GGS SO2 emission baseline of 31,513 

tons/yr would reduce it to 6,311 tons/ 

yr, resulting in a reduction of 25,202 

tons of SO2 annually.30

However, dry scrubbers are capable of 

much greater control efficiencies than 

the 80 percent level that GGS assumes.31

Therefore, for the purpose of calculating 

the cost effectiveness of dry scrubbers at 

the GGS, we also analyzed an SO2

emission limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu, 

which results in a scrubber efficiency of 

approximately 89.4%. Applying this 

level of control to our adjusted GGS 

baseline of 31,513 tons/yr would reduce 

it to 3,347 tons/yr, resulting in a 

reduction of 28,166 tons of SO2

annually. Table 2 summarizes EPA’s 

adjustments to the Nebraska cost 

estimates for dry FGD control at GGS. 

TABLE 2—RANGE OF GGS DRY SCRUBBER COST EFFECTIVENESS

Dry FGD Dry FGD 

(original NPPD EPA’s estimate 

BART 

analysis) 

SO2 Baseline ................................................................................................... 49,785 31,513 

Uncontrolled Emission Level (lbs/MMBtu) ....................................................... 0.749 0.565 

Controlled Emission Rate (lbs/MMBtu) ............................................................ 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.06 

Percent Reduction ........................................................................................... 80% 73.5% 80% 89.4%

SO2 Emission Reduction (tons) ....................................................................... 39,815 23,147 25,202 28,166 

Total Annualized Cost ..................................................................................... $108,535,690 $53,469,570 $54,335,512 $55,543,352 

Total Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) ...................................................................... $2,726 $2,310 $2,156 $1,972 

In summary, we believe that 

Nebraska’s cost analysis includes errors 

and deviations from EPA’s Cost Control 

Manual that results in the 

overestimation of the costs of FGD 

controls. In addition, the State did not 

do a full evaluation of the potential 

visibility benefits from levels of control 

that FGD is capable of achieving. We 

believe that the cost per ton of SO2

controls ranging from $1,972 (our 

analysis) to $2,958 (Nebraska’s analysis, 

plus water) is reasonable, and that the 

visibility benefits, whether considered 

just at Badlands or cumulatively, are 

significant. Finally, we believe that the 

State improperly rejected DSI as a 

potential BART control. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to disapprove Nebraska’s 

BART determination for SO2 controls at 

GGS. 

f. BART Summary and Enforceability 

Each source subject to BART must 

install and operate BART as 

expeditiously as practicable, but in no 

event later than five years after approval 

of the SIP revision; and include 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements to ensure the 

BART limits are enforceable. Nebraska 

chose to incorporate BART 

requirements into PSD permits issued 

pursuant to Title 129 of the Nebraska 

Air Quality Regulations, Chapter 19. 

These limits will be incorporated into 

the facility’s Title V permits after SIP 

approval. The permits require that the 

limits be met within five years of 

approval of Nebraska’s regional haze 

SIP. The limits must be met on a thirtyday rolling average basis at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown 

and malfunction. The permits require 

the use of a NOX continuous emission 

monitoring system (CEMS) on each unit 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

BART NOX limits. Each CEMS is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 12781 

32http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve. 

required to be operated and certified in 

accordance with 40 CFR Part 75. 

Recordkeeping and reporting is also 

required to be in accordance with 40 

CFR Part 75. The PSD permits were 

submitted to the EPA for SIP approval 

as part of the State’s RH SIP submittal. 

The PSD permits are enforceable by the 

State, and by EPA. We have reviewed 

these requirements and propose to find 

them adequate as they relate to the 

BART limits we are proposing to 

approve. 

Table 3 is a summary of the BART 

determinations made by Nebraska and 

EPA’s proposed action on those 

determinations. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF NEBRASKA BART DETERMINATIONS

Facility, units Pollutant BART controls determined by the State EPA’s proposed action 

OPPD Nebraska City Station, Unit 1 NOX ............. Install low NOX burners with over fired air. Meet presumptive level of 

0.23 lbs/MMBtu.

Approval. 

SO2 .............. No additional controls. Source currently uses low sulfur coal .................... Approval. 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station, 

Units 1 and 2.

NOX ............. Install low NOX Burners with over fired air. Meet presumptive level of 

0.23 lbs/MMBtu, averaged over the two units.

Approval. 

SO2 .............. No additional controls. Continue to use low sulfur coal .............................. Disapproval. 

G. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

Address SO2 BART for GGS and LTS 

As discussed above, we propose to 

disapprove Nebraska’s BART 

determination for GGS. In addition, as 

discussed in section III.E. (Long Term 

Strategy), we propose to disapprove 

Nebraska’s LTS insofar as it relied on 

the deficient BART determination for 

SO2 at GGS. To address the deficiencies 

identified in these proposed 

disapprovals, we are also proposing a 

FIP. 

The RHR allows for use of an 

alternative program in lieu of BART so 

long as the alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal than would BART. On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

States in which the Transport Rule 

applies, including Nebraska. 76 FR 

82219. 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. EPA has not taken final action on 

that rule. 

We are proposing a partial FIP, 

relying on the Transport Rule as an 

alternative to BART for SO2 emissions 

from the GGS units. This limited FIP 

would satisfy the SO2 BART 

requirement for these units and remedy 

the deficiency in Nebraska’s LTS. 

We noted that on December 30, 2011, 

the D.C. Circuit Court 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 D.C. Circuit 

Court 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. Under the Regional Haze Rule, an 

alternative to BART does not need to be 

fully implemented until 2018. As that is 

well after we expect the stay to be lifted, 

EPA believes it may still rely on the 

Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART. Further, our proposed action 

would not impact the implementation of 

the Transport Rule or otherwise 

interfere with the stay. 

H. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

RAVI 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

States to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze. Under EPA’s RAVI 

regulations, the RAVI portion of a State 

SIP must address any integral vistas 

identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.304. An integral vista is defined in 40 

CFR 51.301 as a ‘‘view perceived from 

within the mandatory Class I Federal 

area of a specific landmark or panorama 

located outside the boundary of the 

mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

Visibility in any Class I area includes 

any integral vista associated with that 

area. As mentioned previously, 

Nebraska does not have any Class I areas 

and the FLMs have not certified any 

integral vistas affected by emissions 

from Nebraska sources, therefore, the 

Nebraska regional haze SIP submittal is 

not required to address the two 

requirements regarding coordination of 

the regional haze SIP with the RAVI 

LTS and monitoring provisions. 

I. Monitoring Strategy 

Because it does not host a Class I area, 

Nebraska is not required to develop a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting regional 

haze impairment that is representative 

of Class I areas within the State. 

However, the State is required to 

establish procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information 

is used to determine the contribution of 

emissions from within the State to 

regional haze impairment at Class I 

areas outside of the State. 

Compliance with this requirement is 

met by participation in the IMPROVE 

network.32 Nebraska installed one 

IMPROVE protocol sampler at Nebraska 

National Forest County near Halsey, 

Nebraska in the central part of the State, 

and another at Crescent Lake National 

Wild Life Refuge in the panhandle of 

the State. A third IMPROVE Protocol 

sampler in Nebraska is operated 

independently in Thurston County, by 

the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; however, 

EPA notes that this monitor is no longer 

operating. 

EPA believes the State’s commitment 

to utilize data from these sites, or any 

other EPA-approved monitoring 

network location, to characterize and 

model conditions within the State and 

to compare visibility conditions in the 

State to visibility impairment at Class I 

areas hosted by other States, and 

proposes that Nebraska has satisfied the 

monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4). 

J. Emissions Inventory 

States are required to develop 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. 

As mentioned previously, Nebraska 

worked with CENRAP and its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12782 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

contractors to develop statewide 

emission inventories for 2002 and 2018. 

Detailed methodologies are documented 

in appendices 8.3 and 9.1 of the SIP. 

The 2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions 

and applying reductions expected from 

Federal and State regulations affecting 

the emissions of the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, SO2, and VOCs. 

The 2002 emissions were grown to year 

2018 primarily using the Economic 

Growth Analysis System (EGAS6), 

MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission modeling 

software, and the Integrated Planning 

Model (IPM) version 2.93 for EGUs. The 

2018 emissions for EGUs were based on 

simulations of the IPM that took into the 

account the effects of CAIR on 

emissions. 

At the time modeling was conducted, 

BART decisions had not been made by 

many States, including Oklahoma and 

Nebraska. Presumptive levels of BART 

control were assumed in projections of 

2018 emissions. The 2018 Nebraska 

inventory was then updated to account 

for Nebraska’s BART decisions, 

specifically, no SO2 controls on the two 

BART-subject EGUs in the State. 

EPA believes the 2002 and 2018 

statewide emissions inventories and the 

State’s method for developing the 2018 

emissions inventory for Nebraska meets 

the requirements of the RHR. Nebraska 

has also committed to update inventory 

periodically, therefore, we propose that 

Nebraska has met the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). 

K. Federal Land Manager (FLM) 

Consultation 

States are required to provide the 

FLMs an opportunity for consultation, 

in person and at least sixty days prior 

to holding any public hearing on the SIP 

(or its revision). Consultations should 

include the opportunity for the FLMs to 

discuss their assessment of impairment 

of visibility in any Class I area; and 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPG and on the development and 

implementation of strategies to address 

visibility impairment. 

Nebraska provided several 

opportunities for the FLMs to comment 

on Nebraska’s regional haze plan. 

Nebraska asserts that it sent the draft 

BART permits for NPPD and OPPD to 

the FLMs in mid-2008, and again prior 

to public notice. Nebraska provided the 

FLMs with a draft of the Nebraska 

regional haze SIP on November 16, 

2010, and received formal comments 

from the National Park Service (NPS), 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and the US Forest Service 

(USFS) in January 2011. 

In developing any SIP (or plan 

revision), States must include a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. The 

FLM comments and Nebraska’s 

responses are provided in appendix 3 of 

the SIP, and are summarized in the TSD 

for this rulemaking. 

The main FLM comments centered on 

concerns that the modeling done by the 

RPOs assumed a presumptive level of 

control on Nebraska BART sources, but 

Nebraska did not go on to require that 

level of control, and in fact, required no 

control for SO2. 

The FLMs also commented that DSI 

should be evaluated for SO2 control and 

SNCR for NOX control at NCS Unit 1; 

they disagree with Nebraska’s decision 

to not require FGD and SCR, as both 

controls have a reasonable cost. They 

strongly disagree with the BART 

determinations for GGS, pointing out 

that the visibility impact of these units 

is significant at more than just the 

closest Class I area (Badlands), and 

question several aspects of the cost 

estimation, such as escalation, 

contingencies, allowance for funds 

during construction, overestimation of 

direct annual costs. 

The USFWS did some interagency 

consultation regarding water availability 

as a reason not to require FGD controls. 

The USFWS Air Branch asked the 

USFWS’s Nebraska Field Office to 

review Nebraska’s draft regional haze 

SIP and comment on the merits of the 

arguments on water and endangered 

species protection. While the Nebraska 

Field Office agrees that Nebraska’s 

arguments have some merit, they say 

that the information provided by 

Nebraska represents a worst-case 

scenario, and concludes that the water 

availability concerns do not 

automatically negate the opportunity to 

make improvements in air quality. 

Finally, regional haze SIPs must 

provide procedures for continuing 

consultation between the State and 

FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR 

51.308, including development and 

review of SIP revisions and five-year 

progress reports, and on the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

Nebraska has committed to continuing 

to coordinate and consult with the 

FLMs during the development of future 

progress reports and plan revisions, as 

well as during the implementation of 

programs having the potential to 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

the mandatory Class I Federal areas. We 

propose that Nebraska has satisfied the 

FLM consultation requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(i). 

L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year 

Progress Report 

Nebraska acknowledged the 

requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)–(h) 

to submit periodic progress reports and 

regional haze SIP revisions, with the 

first report due by July 31, 2018, and 

revisions due every ten years thereafter. 

Nebraska committed to meeting this 

requirement. 

Nebraska also acknowledged the 

requirement to submit periodic reports 

evaluating progress towards the 

reasonable progress goals established for 

each mandatory Class I area. Nebraska 

committed to complete the first fiveyear progress report by December 31, 

2016. The report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the reasonable 

progress goal for each mandatory Class 

I area located outside Nebraska, which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within Nebraska. Using the findings of 

this first report, Nebraska committed to 

determining whether the adequacy of 

the plan is sufficient and taking 

appropriate action to revise the SIP as 

needed. We propose to find that 

Nebraska has satisfied the requirements 

to submit periodic SIP revisions and 

progress reports as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(f)–(h). 

IV. Proposed Actions 

We propose to partially approve and 

partially disapprove Nebraska’s regional 

haze SIP submitted on July 13, 2011. We 

propose to disapprove the SO2 BART 

determinations for Units 1 and 2 of GGS 

because they do not comply with our 

regulations and guidance. We are also 

proposing to disapprove Nebraska’s 

long-term strategy insofar as it relied on 

the deficient SO2 BART determination 

at GGS. We propose a FIP relying on the 

Transport Rule as an alternative to 

BART for SO2 emissions from GGS to 

address these issues. 

We propose to approve all other 

portions of the Nebraska RH SIP. We 

note that all controls required as part of 

Nebraska’s BART determinations, not 

included as part of our proposed FIP, 

must be operational within five years 

from the effective date of our final rule. 

V. 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 (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is 

therefore not subject to review under the 

Executive Order. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 12783 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, Under the Paperwork 

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

OMB must approve all ‘‘collections of 

information’’ by EPA. The Act defines 

‘‘collection of information’’ as a 

requirement for ‘‘answers to * * * 

identical reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements imposed on ten or more 

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

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not 

apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 proposed 

partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. Moreover, due to 

the nature of the Federal-State 

relationship under the CAA, preparation 

of flexibility analysis would constitute 

Federal inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

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

U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted to 

inflation). Under section 205, EPA must 

select the most cost-effective and least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is 

consistent with statutory requirements. 

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a 

plan for informing and advising any 

small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by 

the rule. 

EPA has determined that the approval 

action proposed does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law, 

and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to 

State, local, or tribal governments, or to 

the private sector, result from this 

action. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves State rules 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not impose any new mandates on 

State or local governments. 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 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. This rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not involve decisions 

intended to mitigate environmental 

health or safety risks. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12784 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. The 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 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it proposes to approve Stateadopted emission limits 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. 

This proposed rule does not impose any 

new mandates, because EGUs in 

Nebraska are subject to the requirements 

of the Transport Rule independently of 

this proposed action. See 76 FR 82219, 

for an analysis of the implications of 

Executive Order 12898 in relation to 

EPA’s proposed rule, ‘‘Regional Haze: 

Revisions to Provisions Governing 

Alternatives to Source-Specific Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, Limited SIP 

Disapprovals, and Federal 

Implementation Plans’’ (December 30, 

2011). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of 

pollution, Regional haze, Best available 

control technology. 

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

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

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. 

Subpart CC—Nebraska 

2. Sections 52.1430–52.1434 remain 

reserved. 

3. Section 52.1435 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1435 Visibility protection. 

(a) The requirements of section 169A 

of the Clean Air Act are not met because 

the plan does not include approvable 

measures for meeting the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for 

protection of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. 

(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology 

for SO2 at Nebraska Public Power 

District, Gerald Gentleman Units 1 and 

2. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e) 

with respect to emissions of SO2 from 

Nebraska Public Power District, Gerald 

Gentleman Units 1 and 2 are satisfied by 

§ 52.1429. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4991 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 11–42, 03–109, 12–23, and 

CC Docket No. 96–45; FCC 12–11] 

Lifeline and Link Up Reform and 

Modernization, Advancing Broadband 

Availability Through Digital Literacy 

Training 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks further focused 

comment on a number of issues related 

to the Lifeline program, including 

establishing an eligibility database, 

advancing broadband availability 

through digital literacy training, limiting 

section 251 resale of Lifeline-supported 

services, establishing a permanent 

support amount for voice service 

support, reforming Lifeline and Link Up 

support on Tribal lands, adding Women, 

Infants and Children (WIC) to the list of 

qualifying programs for Lifeline, 

establishing eligibility for homeless 

veterans, determining whether ETCs 

should be required to apply the Lifeline 

discount on all of their voice and data 

packages, examining whether the 

Commission should further clarify the 

own facilities requirement, determining 

whether ILECs should have the ability 

to opt out of the Lifeline program as 

well as whether the record retention 

requirement should be lengthened from 

three years to ten years. 

DATES: Comments are due April 2, 2012 

reply comments are due May 1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket Nos. 11–42, 

03–109, 12–23, and CC Docket No. 96– 

45; FCC 12–11, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS