[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11937-11958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4689]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0782-201149, FRL-9638-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Alabama; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the 
Alabama state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of 
Alabama through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management 
(ADEM), on July 15, 2008, that addresses regional haze for the first 
implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to 
prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness 
areas) caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources 
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional 
haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress 
towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 
Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision 
to implement the regional haze requirements for Alabama on the basis 
that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the Alabama SIP. 
Additionally, EPA is proposing to rescind the federal regulations 
previously approved into the Alabama SIP on November 24, 1987, and to 
rely on the provisions in Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to 
meet the long-term strategy (LTS) requirements for reasonably 
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). EPA has previously proposed 
a limited disapproval of the Alabama regional haze SIP because of 
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from 
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 
Consequently, EPA is not proposing to take action in this rulemaking to 
address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze 
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-

[[Page 11938]]

OAR-2009-0782, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97f5f2f9fdf6fafef9b9fbeef9f8e5f6f2d7f2e7f6b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c6e6962666d61656222607562637e6d694c697c6d226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Fax: 404-562-9019.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0782, Regulatory Development Section, Air 
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2009-0782.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning 
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson or Michele Notarianni, 
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides 
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Sara 
Waterson can be reached at telephone number (404) 562-9061 and by 
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ceb9afbaabbcbda1a0e0bdafbcaf8eabbeafe0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c0b1d08190e0f1312520f1d0e1d3c190c1d521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>. Michele Notarianni can be 
reached at telephone number (404) 562-9031 and by electronic mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a54554e5b48535b54545314575359525f565f7a5f4a5b145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aac4c5decbd8c3cbc4c4c384c7c3c9c2cfc6cfeacfdacb84cdc5dc">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
    D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
    E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's regional haze submittal?
    A. Affected Class I Area
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies
    1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility 
Improvement for Uniform Rate of Progress
    3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, 
Source Categories, and Geographic Areas
    4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in Alabama and Surrounding Areas
    5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable 
Progress Analysis
    6. BART
    7. RPGs
    D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
    E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    F. Consultation With States and FLMs
    1. Consultation With Other States
    2. Consultation With the FLMs
    G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP 
revision addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and 
110(k)(3) because the revision as a whole strengthens the Alabama SIP. 
This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support 
Document \1\ (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited 
approval action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled ``Technical Support 
Document for Alabama Regional Haze Submittal,'' is included in the 
public docket for this action.
    \2\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the 
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and 
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the 
Alabama regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's 
regional haze

[[Page 11939]]

SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain 
regional haze requirements. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). EPA is 
not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on issues associated 
with Alabama's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. Comments on 
EPA's proposed limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze SIP are 
accepted at the docket for EPA's December 30, 2011 (see Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729). The comment period for EPA's December 30, 2011, 
rulemaking is scheduled to end on February 28, 2012.
    In this action, EPA is also proposing to rescind the federal 
regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 that were approved into the Alabama SIP. 
See 52 FR 45138 (November 24, 1987). EPA is proposing to rely on the 
provisions in Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to meet the 
monitoring and LTS requirements for RAVI at 40 CFR 51.305 and 40 CFR 
51.306.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad 
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), 
and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen 
oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>), and in some cases, ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>) 
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react 
in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> can also cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition 
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range \3\ in many Class I areas 
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of 
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. 
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average 
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. See 
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or 
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas \4\ which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment''. See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I areas consist of 
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national 
memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In 
accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with 
the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 
U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I area is the responsibility 
of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When the term 
``Class I area'' is used in this action, it means a ``mandatory 
Class I federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first 
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no 
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and 
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air 
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem 
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop 
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the 
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in 
another.
    Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate 
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged 
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning 
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and 
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to 
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas 
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional 
strategies to reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other 
pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 
Southeast (VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, 
tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to 
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of 
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the 
southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments 
include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,

[[Page 11940]]

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 
Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit 
for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform 
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire 
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy 
conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using 
air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then 
transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. 
The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in 
improving visibility than light extinction itself because each deciview 
change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the 
human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one 
deciview.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. See 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim 
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), 
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking 
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of 
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused 
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that 
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural 
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as 
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically 
review progress every five years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine 
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired 
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of 
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate 
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance''), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-004 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each 
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values 
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline 
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the 
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the 
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions 
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in 
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, 
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I 
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. The RHR 
does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead 
calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable 
progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'') visibility 
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in 
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year 
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
least impaired days over the same period.
    States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A 
of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs 
of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the 
remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must 
demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when 
selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 
5-1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the ``glidepath'') 
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of 
progress over the 10-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards 
achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of 
progress which states are to use for analytical comparison to the 
amount of

[[Page 11941]]

progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one 
or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with 
potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with 
emissions sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the 
Class I state's areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil 
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity 
in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in 
the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow 
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of 
sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC or NH<INF>3</INF> compounds impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any 
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 
deciview.
    In their SIPs, states must identify potential BART sources, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a 
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be 
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional 
haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); see 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements 
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART 
controls on the source.
    As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative 
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national 
visibility goal than would BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration 
for CAIR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide 
that states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 
CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain 
subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan in 40 CFR part 97 need 
not require affected BART-eligible electrical generating units (EGUs) 
to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF>. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not 
address direct emissions of PM, states were still required to conduct a 
BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that 
pollutant. Challenges to CAIR resulted in the remand of the rule to 
EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008).
    EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport 
of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> in the eastern United States. See 
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 
find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve 
greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART 
in the states in which the Transport Rule applies. See 76 FR 82219. 
Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 
allow states to substitute participation in the trading programs under 
the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not yet taken 
final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit 
issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in 
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the 
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit 
stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the 
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA 
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA 
is expected to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the 
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the

[[Page 11942]]

implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected 
by emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, 
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address 
interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states 
belong to different RPOs.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) 
measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) 
emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; 
(4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management 
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including 
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) 
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) 
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in 
point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by 
the LTS. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS

    As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS 
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic 
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years 
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, 
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state 
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze 
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating 
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule 
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's 
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be 
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through 
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with 
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. 
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring 
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether 
RPGs will be met.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
    <bullet> Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
    <bullet> Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of 
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to 
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include 
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for 
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. 
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory 
periodically; and
    <bullet> Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and 
submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs 
an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior 
to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must 
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of 
impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's regional haze submittal?

    On July 15, 2008, ADEM submitted revisions to the Alabama SIP to 
address regional haze in the State's Class I area as required by EPA's 
RHR.

A. Affected Class I Area

    Alabama has one Class I area within its borders: Sipsey Wilderness 
Area. Alabama is responsible for developing

[[Page 11943]]

its a regional haze SIP that addresses the Class I area. The State 
determined RPGs, including consulting with other states that impact the 
Class I area, as discussed in IV.F.1. In addition, Alabama is 
responsible for describing its long-term emission strategies, its role 
in the consultation processes, and how its particular state SIP meets 
the other requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations.
    The Alabama regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility 
improvement at this Class I area and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within 
the first regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In 
developing the LTS, Alabama considered both emissions sources inside 
and outside of Alabama that may cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in Alabama's Class I area. The State also identified and 
considered emissions sources within Alabama that may cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring 
states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO worked with 
the State in developing the technical analyses used to make these 
determinations, including state-by-state contributions to visibility 
impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the one Class I 
area in Alabama and those areas affected by emissions from Alabama.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, Alabama calculated baseline/current and natural 
visibility conditions for its Class I area, as summarized below (and as 
further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 of EPA's TSD to this 
Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
    Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural 
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light 
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine 
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. 
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for 
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations 
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE 
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA 
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to the 2003 
EPA guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural 
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is 
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural 
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to 
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the 
IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\8\ The purpose of this 
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate 
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light 
extinction. Alabama opted to use the default estimates for the natural 
concentrations, combined with the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for its 
area. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions using the new 
IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area by 
VISTAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort 
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from 
federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) 
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to 
aid the creation of federal and State implementation plans for the 
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of 
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emissions sources 
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring 
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review 
of the science \9\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size 
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and 
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon 
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New 
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea 
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific 
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to 
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of 
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement 
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium 
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new 
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is 
summarized in numerous published papers. See, e.g., Hand, J.L., and 
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating 
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. 
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to 
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis 
Workgroup. September 2006. http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
    ADEM estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Sipsey 
Wilderness Area using available monitoring data from a single IMPROVE 
monitoring site. As explained in section III.B, baseline visibility 
conditions are the same as current conditions for the first regional 
haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was 
calculated for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best 
visibility days at the Alabama Class I area. IMPROVE data records for 
the Sipsey Wilderness Area for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the EPA 
requirements for data completeness. See page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking 
Progress Guidance. Table 3.3-1 from Appendix G of the Alabama regional 
haze SIP, also provided in section III.B.3 of EPA's TSD to this action, 
lists the 20 percent best and worst days for the baseline period of 
2000-2004 for the Sipsey Wilderness Area. These data are also provided 
at the following Web site: http://www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/SesarmBext_20BW.htm.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
    For the Alabama Class I area, baseline visibility on the 20 percent 
worst days is approximately 29 deciviews. Natural visibility in this 
area is predicted to be approximately 11 deciviews on the 20 percent 
worst days. The natural and baseline conditions for Alabama's Class I 
area for both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 
1 below.

[[Page 11944]]



 Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for Alabama's Class
                                 I Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Average for 20%
           Class I area               worst days (dv    Average for 20%
                                          \10\)          best days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions:
    Sipsey Wilderness Area........              10.90               5.03
Baseline Visibility Conditions
 (2000-2004)
    Sipsey Wilderness Area........              29.03              15.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Uniform Rate of Progress
    In setting the RPGs, Alabama considered the uniform rate of 
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve 
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is 
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or 
equivalent to the glidepath.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term, ``dv,'' is the abbreviation for ``deciview.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one 
for the 20 percent best days and one for the 20 percent worst days, for 
its Class I area. Alabama constructed the graph for the worst days 
(i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress 
Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level 
of visibility impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of visibility 
conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for its 
area. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, straight line 
spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to depict no 
degradation in visibility over the implementation period of the SIP. 
Alabama's SIP shows that the State's RPGs for its area provide for 
improvement in visibility for the 20 percent worst days over the period 
of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for 
the 20 percent best days over the same period, in accordance with 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(1).
    For the Sipsey Wilderness Area, the overall visibility improvement 
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between 
baseline visibility of 29.03 deciviews for the 20 percent worst days 
and natural conditions of 10.90 deciviews, i.e., 18.13 deciviews. Over 
the 60-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an approximate 
average improvement of 0.302 deciview per year (i.e., 18.13 deciviews/
60 years) to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the 14-year period 
from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve visibility improvements at least 
equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst 
days at the Sipsey Wilderness Area, Alabama would need to project at 
least 4.23 deciviews over the first implementation period (i.e., 0.302 
deciviews x 14 years = 4.23 deciviews) of visibility improvement from 
the 29.03 deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at 
or below 24.80 deciviews in 2018. As discussed below in section IV.C.7, 
Alabama projects a 5.50 deciview improvement to visibility from the 
29.03 deciview baseline to 23.53 deciviews in 2018 for the 20 percent 
most impaired days, and a 1.35 deciview improvement to 14.22 deciviews 
from the baseline visibility of 15.57 deciviews for the 20 percent 
least impaired days.

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies

    As described in section III.E of this action, the LTS is a 
compilation of state-specific control measures relied on by the state 
for achieving its RPGs. Alabama's LTS for the first implementation 
period addresses the emissions reductions from federal, state, and 
local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the 
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Alabama LTS was 
developed by the State, in coordination with the VISTAS RPO, through an 
evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the 
emissions units within Alabama and in surrounding states that likely 
have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State's Class I 
area; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all 
controls required or expected under federal and state regulations for 
the 2004-2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected 
visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the 
State's Class I area; and (4) application of the four statutory factors 
in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified emissions units 
to determine if additional reasonable controls were required.
    In a separate notice proposing limited disapproval of the regional 
haze SIPs of a number of states, EPA noted that these states relied on 
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted 
reasonable progress goals. See 76 FR 82219 (December 30, 2011). In that 
action, EPA proposed a limited disapproval of Alabama's regional haze 
SIP submittal insofar as the SIP relied on CAIR. For that reason, EPA 
is not taking action on that aspect of Alabama's regional haze SIP in 
this action. Comments on the December 30, 2011, proposed determination 
are accepted at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. The comment period 
for EPA's December 30, 2011, proposed rulemaking is scheduled to end on 
February 28, 2012.
1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With Federal and State Control 
Requirements
    The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical 
analyses was developed by VISTAS with assistance from Alabama. The 2018 
emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and 
applying reductions expected from Federal and state regulations 
affecting the emissions of VOC and the visibility-impairing pollutants 
NO<INF>X</INF>, PM, and SO<INF>2</INF>. The BART Guidelines direct 
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> 
impair visibility in their Class I area(s). As discussed further in 
section IV.C.3, VISTAS performed modeling sensitivity analyses, which 
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH<INF>3</INF> do 
not significantly impair visibility in the VISTAS region. Thus, while 
emissions inventories were also developed for NH<INF>3</INF> and VOC 
and applicable Federal VOC reductions were incorporated into Alabama's 
regional haze analyses, Alabama did not further evaluate NH<INF>3</INF> 
and VOC emissions sources for potential controls under BART or 
reasonable progress.
    VISTAS developed emissions for five inventory source 
classifications: stationary point and area sources, off-road and on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. Stationary point sources are 
those sources that emit greater than a specified tonnage per year, 
depending on the pollutant, with data provided at the facility level. 
Stationary area sources are those

[[Page 11945]]

sources whose individual emissions are relatively small, but due to the 
large number of these sources, the collective emissions from the source 
category could be significant. VISTAS estimated emissions on a 
countywide level for the inventory categories of: (a) Stationary area 
sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) mobile sources (i.e., equipment 
that can move but does not use the roadways); and (c) biogenic sources 
(which are natural sources of emissions, such as trees). On-road mobile 
source emissions are estimated by vehicle type and road type, and are 
summed to the countywide level.
    There are many federal and state control programs being implemented 
that VISTAS and Alabama anticipate will reduce emissions between the 
end of the baseline period and 2018. Emissions reductions from these 
control programs are projected to achieve substantial visibility 
improvement by 2018 in the Sipsey Wilderness Area. The control programs 
relied upon by Alabama include CAIR; EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; 
North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act; consent decrees for Tampa 
Electric, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Gulf Power-Plant Crist, 
Santee Cooper, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, and Alabama Power 
Company-Plant Miller; a consent decree for Cargill, Inc.; 
NO<INF>X</INF> and/or VOC reductions from the control rules in 1-hour 
ozone SIPs for Atlanta, Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; federal 2007 
heavy duty diesel engine standards for on-road trucks and buses; 
federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for on-road vehicles; federal large 
spark ignition and recreational vehicle controls; and EPA's non-road 
diesel rules. Controls from various federal Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT) rules were also utilized in the development of the 
2018 emission inventory projections. These MACT rules include the 
industrial boiler/process heater MACT (referred to as ``Industrial 
Boiler MACT''), the combustion turbine and reciprocating internal 
combustion engines MACTs, and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT 
standards.
    Effective July 30, 2007, the D.C. Circuit mandated the vacatur and 
remand of the Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.\11\ This MACT was vacated 
since it was directly affected by the vacatur and remand of the 
Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. EPA 
proposed a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to address the vacatur on 
June 4, 2010, (75 FR 32006) and issued a final rule on March 21, 2011 
(76 FR 15608). The VISTAS modeling included emissions reductions from 
the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT rule, and Alabama did not redo its 
modeling analysis when the rule was re-issued. Even though the State's 
modeling is based on the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT limits, 
Alabama's modeling conclusions are unlikely to be affected because the 
expected reductions due to the vacated rule were relatively small 
compared to the State's total SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 
coarse particulate matter (PM<INF>10</INF>) emissions in 2018 (i.e., 
0.2 to 0.5 percent, depending on the pollutant, of the projected 2018 
SO<INF>2</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF> inventory). Thus, 
EPA does not expect that differences between the vacated and final 
Industrial Boiler MACT emission limits would affect the adequacy of the 
existing Alabama regional haze SIP. If there is a need to address 
discrepancies between projected emissions reductions from the vacated 
Industrial Boiler MACT and the Industrial Boiler MACT issued on March 
21, 2011 (76 FR 15608), EPA expects Alabama to do so in the State's 
five-year progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 2 and 3, below, summarize the 2002 baseline and 2018 
estimated emissions inventories for Alabama.

                              Table 2--2002 Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC         NOX        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................      49,332     244,348      23,291      32,886       2,200     544,309
Area....................................     207,952      34,172      98,671     440,663      60,007      54,462
On-Road Mobile..........................     127,295     158,212       2,799       3,903       5,588       6,900
Off-Road Mobile.........................      60,487      65,366       4,526       4,949          33       7,584
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................     445,065     502,098     129,287     482,401      67,828     613,255
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Table 3--2018 Emissions Inventory Summary for Alabama
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC         NOX        PM2.5       PM10         NH3         SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................      57,243     142,676      27,366      37,746       3,536     249,075
Area....................................     181,116      36,945     108,892     497,924      73,969      52,950
On-Road Mobile..........................      49,175      47,298       1,192       2,410       7,298         720
Off-road Mobile.........................      40,407      43,799       2,874       3,300          42       2,818
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................     327,941     270,718     140,324     541,380      84,845     305,563
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and Determine Visibility Improvement for 
Uniform Rate of Progress
    VISTAS performed modeling for the regional haze LTS for the 10 
southeastern states, including Alabama. The modeling analysis is a 
complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the modeling 
system. VISTAS used the following modeling system:
    <bullet> Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Meteorological Model 
is a nonhydrostatic, prognostic, meteorological model routinely used 
for urban- and regional-scale photochemical, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and 
regional haze regulatory modeling studies.

[[Page 11946]]

    <bullet> Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 
Emissions modeling system is an emissions modeling system that 
generates hourly gridded speciated emission inputs of mobile, non-road 
mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic emissions sources for 
photochemical grid models. Air Quality Model: The EPA's Models-3/
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 
photochemical grid model capable of addressing ozone, PM, visibility, 
and acid deposition at a regional scale. The photochemical model 
selected for this study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was modified through 
VISTAS with a module for Secondary Organics Aerosols in an open and 
transparent manner that was also subjected to outside peer review.
    CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the VISTAS region for 2002 and 
2018 was carried out on a grid of 12 x 12 kilometer cells that covers 
the 10 VISTAS states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia) and 
states adjacent to them. This grid is nested within a larger national 
CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 kilometer cells that covers the continental 
United States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the 
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. Selection 
of a representative period of meteorology is crucial for evaluating 
baseline air quality conditions and projecting future changes in air 
quality due to changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants. 
VISTAS conducted an in-depth analysis which resulted in the selection 
of the entire year of 2002 (January 1-December 31) as the best period 
of meteorology available for conducting the CMAQ modeling. The VISTAS 
states modeling was developed consistent with EPA's Guidance on the Use 
of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM<INF>2.5,</INF> and Regional Haze, located 
at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, (EPA-454/B-07-002), April 2007, and EPA document, 
Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
Regional Haze Regulations, located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated 
November 2005 (``EPA's Modeling Guidance'').
    VISTAS examined the model performance of the regional modeling for 
the areas of interest before determining whether the CMAQ model results 
were suitable for use in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and 
for use in the modeling assessment. The modeling assessment predicts 
future levels of emissions and visibility impairment used to support 
the LTS and to compare predicted, modeled visibility levels with those 
on the uniform rate of progress. In keeping with the objective of the 
CMAQ modeling platform, the air quality model performance was evaluated 
using graphical and statistical assessments based on measured ozone, 
fine particles, and acid deposition from various monitoring networks 
and databases for the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a diverse set of 
statistical parameters from the EPA's Modeling Guidance to stress and 
examine the model and modeling inputs. Once VISTAS determined the model 
performance to be acceptable, VISTAS used the model to assess the 2018 
RPGs using the current and future year air quality modeling 
predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of progress.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), Alabama provided EPA with 
the appropriate supporting documentation for all required analyses used 
to determine the State's LTS. The technical analyses and modeling used 
to develop the glidepath and to support the LTS are consistent with 
EPA's RHR and interim and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA proposes to 
accept the VISTAS technical modeling to support the LTS and determine 
visibility improvement for the uniform rate of progress because the 
modeling system was chosen and simulated according to EPA Modeling 
Guidance. EPA proposes to agree with the VISTAS model performance 
procedures and results, and that the CMAQ is an appropriate tool for 
the regional haze assessments for the Alabama LTS and regional haze 
SIP.
3. Relative Contributions to Visibility Impairment: Pollutants, Source 
Categories, and Geographic Areas
    An important step toward identifying reasonable progress measures 
is to identify the key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment 
at each Class I area. To understand the relative benefit of further 
reducing emissions from different pollutants, source sectors, and 
geographic areas, VISTAS developed emission sensitivity model runs 
using CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air quality impacts from various 
groups of emissions and pollutant scenarios in the Class I areas on the 
20 percent worst visibility days.
    Regarding which pollutants are most significantly impacting 
visibility in the VISTAS region, VISTAS' contribution assessment, based 
on IMPROVE monitoring data, demonstrated that ammonium sulfate is the 
major contributor to PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass and visibility impairment at 
Class I areas in the VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 20 percent 
worst visibility days in 2000-2004, ammonium sulfate accounted for 75 
to 87 percent of the calculated light extinction at the inland Class I 
areas in VISTAS, and 69 to 74 percent of the calculated light 
extinction for all but one of the coastal Class I areas in the VISTAS 
states. In particular, sulfate particles resulting from SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions contribute roughly 75 percent to the calculated light 
extinction on the haziest days for the Sipsey Wilderness Area. In 
contrast, ammonium nitrate contributed less than five percent of the 
calculated light extinction at VISTAS Class I areas on the 20 percent 
worst visibility days. Particulate organic matter (organic carbon) 
accounted for 20 percent or less of the light extinction on the 20 
percent worst visibility days at the VISTAS Class I areas.
    VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas into two types, either 
``coastal'' or ``inland'' (sometimes referred to as ``mountain'') 
sites, based on common/similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 
geography, meteorology), to better represent variations in model 
sensitivity and performance within the VISTAS region, and to describe 
the common factors influencing visibility conditions in the two types 
of Class I areas. Alabama's Class I area is an ``inland'' area.
    Results from VISTAS' emissions sensitivity analyses indicate that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are the 
dominant contributor to visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst 
days at all Class I areas in VISTAS. Alabama concluded that reducing 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGU and non-EGU point sources in the 
VISTAS states would have the greatest visibility benefits for the 
Sipsey Wilderness Area. Because ammonium nitrate is a small contributor 
to PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass and visibility impairment on the 20 percent 
worst days at the inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which include the 
Sipsey Wilderness Area, the benefits of reducing NO<INF>X</INF> and 
NH<INF>3</INF> emissions at these sites is small.
    The VISTAS sensitivity analyses show that VOC emissions from 
biogenic sources such as vegetation also contribute to visibility 
impairment. However, control of these biogenic sources of VOC would be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible. The anthropogenic sources of 
VOC emissions are minor compared to the

[[Page 11947]]

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling anthropogenic sources of VOC 
emissions would have little if any visibility benefits at the Class I 
areas in the VISTAS region, including the Sipsey Wilderness Area. The 
sensitivity analyses also show that reducing primary carbon from point 
sources, ground level sources, or fires is projected to have small to 
no visibility benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas.
    Alabama considered the factors listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and 
in section III.E of this action to develop its LTS as described below. 
Alabama, in conjunction with VISTAS, demonstrated in its SIP that 
elemental carbon (a product of highway and non-road diesel engines, 
agricultural burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), fine soils (a 
product of construction activities and activities that generate 
fugitive dust), and ammonia are relatively minor contributors to 
visibility impairment at the Class I area in Alabama. The State 
considered agricultural and forestry smoke management techniques to 
address visibility impacts from elemental carbon. ADEM has an approved 
smoke management program that addresses the issues laid out in EPA's 
1998 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires 
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf. 
With regard to fine soils, the State considered those activities that 
generate fugitive dust, including construction activities. Fine soil 
particles are minor contributors to visibility at the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area. With regard to construction activities, ADEM has issued 
regulations (ADEM Admin. Code 335-3-4-.02) to control fugitive dust 
from construction activities and to control particulates from fugitive 
dust emissions sources generated within plant boundaries. The State has 
chosen not to develop controls for fine soils in this first 
implementation period because of their relatively minor contribution to 
visibility impairment. With regard to ammonia emissions from 
agricultural sources, ADEM notes in its SIP that the State currently 
has no regulations and there are currently no Federal regulations 
related to the control of ammonia from animal feeding operations. Once 
EPA has proposed regulations for these sources, ADEM will commit to 
evaluating potential controls on applicable sources in Alabama.
    EPA preliminary concurs with the State's technical demonstration 
showing that elemental carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not 
significant contributors to visibility in the State's Class I area, and 
therefore, proposes to find that Alabama has adequately satisfied 40 
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). EPA's TSD to this Federal Register action and 
Alabama's SIP provide more details on the State's consideration of 
these factors for Alabama's LTS.
    The emissions sensitivity analyses conducted by VISTAS predict that 
reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGU and non-EGU industrial 
point sources will result in the greatest improvements in visibility in 
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region, more than any other visibility-
impairing pollutant. Specific to Alabama, the VISTAS sensitivity 
analysis projects that visibility benefits in the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area from SO<INF>2</INF> reductions from Alabama's EGUs would have the 
greatest visibility benefits in the Sipsey Wilderness Area. 
Contributions from other VISTAS states, other RPOs, and from the 
boundary conditions are smaller but not insignificant. Smaller benefits 
are projected from additional SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions from 
non-utility industrial point sources. Thus, controlling sources outside 
of the VISTAS region is predicted to provide less significant 
improvements in visibility in the Sipsey Wilderness area.
    Taking the VISTAS sensitivity analyses results into consideration, 
Alabama concluded that reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGU and 
non-EGU point sources in the VISTAS states would have the greatest 
visibility benefits for the Sipsey Wilderness Area. The State chose to 
focus solely on evaluating certain SO<INF>2</INF> sources contributing 
to visibility impairment to the State's Class I area for additional 
emissions reductions for reasonable progress in this first 
implementation period (described in sections IV.C.4 and IV.C.5 of this 
action). EPA proposes to agree with the State's analyses and 
conclusions used to determine the pollutants and source categories that 
most contribute to visibility impairment in the Alabama Class I area, 
and proposes to find that the State's approach to focus on developing a 
LTS that includes largely additional measures for point sources of 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions is appropriate.
    SO<INF>2</INF> sources for which it is demonstrated that no 
additional controls are reasonable in this current implementation 
period will not be exempted from future assessments for controls in 
subsequent implementation periods or, when appropriate, from the five-
year periodic SIP reviews. In future implementation periods, additional 
controls on these SO<INF>2</INF> sources evaluated in the first 
implementation period may be determined to be reasonable, based on a 
reasonable progress control evaluation, for continued progress toward 
natural conditions for the 20 percent worst days and to avoid further 
degradation of the 20 percent best days. Similarly, in subsequent 
implementation periods, the State may use different criteria for 
identifying sources for evaluation and may consider other pollutants as 
visibility conditions change over time.
4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To Evaluate for Reasonable 
Progress Controls in Alabama and Surrounding Areas
    As discussed in section IV.C.3 of this action, through 
comprehensive evaluations by VISTAS and the Southern Appalachian 
Mountains Initiative (SAMI),\12\ the VISTAS states concluded that 
sulfate particles resulting from SO<INF>2</INF> emissions account for 
the greatest portion of the regional haze affecting the Class I areas 
in VISTAS states, including the Sipsey Wilderness Area in Alabama. 
Utility and non-utility boilers are the main sources of SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions within the southeastern United States. VISTAS developed a 
methodology for Alabama which enables the State to focus its reasonable 
progress analysis on those geographic regions and source categories 
that impact visibility at its Class I area. Recognizing that there was 
neither sufficient time nor adequate resources available to evaluate 
all emissions units within a given area of influence (AOI) around each 
Class I area that Alabama's sources impact, the State established a 
threshold to determine which emissions units would be evaluated for 
reasonable progress control. In applying this methodology, ADEM first 
calculated the fractional contribution to visibility impairment from 
all emissions units within the SO<INF>2</INF> AOI for the Sipsey 
Wilderness Area and those surrounding areas in other states potentially 
impacted by emissions from emissions units in Alabama. The State then 
identified those emissions units with a contribution of one percent or 
more to the visibility impairment at that particular Class I area, and 
evaluated each of these units for control measures for reasonable 
progress using the

[[Page 11948]]

following four ``reasonable progress factors'' as required under 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of compliance; (ii) time necessary for 
compliance; (iii) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 
compliance; and (iv) remaining useful life of the emissions unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated in a 
voluntary regional partnership ``to identify and recommend 
reasonable measures to remedy existing and prevent future adverse 
effects from human-induced air pollution on the air quality related 
values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains''. States cooperated 
with FLMs, EPA, industry, environmental organizations, and academia 
to complete a technical assessment of the impacts of acid 
deposition, ozone, and fine particles on sensitive resources in the 
Southern Appalachians. The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 
2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alabama's SO<INF>2</INF> AOI methodology captured 55 percent of the 
total point source SO<INF>2</INF> contribution to visibility impairment 
in the Class I area in Alabama and 61 to 73 percent of the total 
contribution at the Class I areas in neighboring states, and required 
an evaluation of 29 sources. Capturing a significantly greater 
percentage of the total contribution would involve an evaluation of 
many more emissions units that have substantially less impact. EPA 
believes the approach developed by VISTAS and implemented for the Class 
I area in Alabama is a reasonable methodology to prioritize the most 
significant contributors to regional haze and to identify sources to 
assess for reasonable progress control in the State's Class I area. EPA 
proposes to find that the approach is consistent with the Agency's 
Reasonable Progress Guidance. The technical approach of VISTAS and 
Alabama was objective and based on several analyses, which included a 
large universe of emissions units within and surrounding the State of 
Alabama and all of the 18 VISTAS Class I areas. It also included an 
analysis of the VISTAS emissions units affecting nearby Class I areas 
surrounding the VISTAS states that are located in other RPOs' Class I 
areas.
5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in the Reasonable Progress 
Analysis
    ADEM identified 29 emissions units at 12 facilities in Alabama (see 
Table 4) with SO<INF>2</INF> emissions that were above the State's 
minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation because they were 
modeled to fall within the sulfate AOI of any Class I area and have a 
one percent or greater contribution to the sulfate visibility 
impairment to at least one Class I area.\13\ Of these 29 units, 19 
emissions units were already subject to CAIR, five units were subject 
to BART, and one facility provided additional information documenting 
that they had been improperly identified as meeting the State's minimum 
threshold for reasonable progress evaluation. Using the expected costs 
of controls for EGUs complying with CAIR as an indicator of what might 
be reasonable for non-EGU sources, ADEM established a threshold of 
$2,000 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> for controls. As explained in section 
IV.C.5, 19 of these 29 emissions units were already subject to CAIR or 
were determined to not have a reasonable expectation of having control 
costs less than $2,000 per ton. Of the four emissions units, three 
initially listed as having potential impacts on Class I areas in other 
states were not identified by these states as impacting their Class I 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See also EPA's TSD, section III.C.2, fractional 
contribution analysis tables for each Class I area, excerpted from 
the Alabama SIP, Appendix H.

   Table 4--Alabama Facilities Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility With a Unit Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis:
    Cargill, Inc. Unit S-407
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area:
    Alabama Power Co--Barry Units 002, 003, 004, 005, 006
    Alabama Power Co--Gorgas Units 004, 005, 008
    Alabama Power Co--Gaston Unit 006
    Alabama Power Co--Miller Units 001, 002, 004, 005
    TVA--Colbert Unit 014
    TVA--Widows Creek, Units 002, 004, 005, 008, 009
Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to a Reasonable Progress
 Analysis:
    Non-EGUs Subject to BART
        Solutia, Inc. Units 009, 013, 014, 015
        International Paper Co. Unit 006
    Not Subject to Evaluation Based on Updated Information
        Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc., Unit 003
    Analysis Not Required By Impacted State
        Escambia Operating Co (Exxon Mobile Co.) Unit 014
        Sanders Lead Co. Units 003, 008
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Facility With an Emissions Unit Subject to Reasonable Progress 
Analysis

    ADEM analyzed whether SO<INF>2</INF> controls should be required 
for the Cargill, Inc., stoker boiler (S-407) based on a consideration 
of the four factors set out in the CAA and EPA's regulations. For the 
limited purpose of evaluating the cost of compliance for the reasonable 
progress assessment in this first regional haze SIP for the non-EGUs, 
ADEM concluded that it was not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear a 
greater economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy. Using 
CAIR as a guide, ADEM used a cost of $2,000 per ton of SO<INF>2</INF> 
controlled or reduced as a threshold for cost effectiveness.
    Cargill's S-407 unit is permitted to burn coal, natural gas, or No. 
2 fuel oil. Coal with a sulfur content of 1.2 to 1.3 pounds/million 
British Thermal units (lb/MMBtu) is the primary fuel source. S-407 
emits about 780 tons per year of SO<INF>2</INF>. Cargill evaluated 
three control options: lower sulfur content coal, wet scrubbers, and 
dry scrubbers. Lower sulfur content coal could not be used because of 
its lack of availability. Also, even if lower sulfur western coal were 
available, significant boiler modification would be necessary to burn 
it and the coal would challenge the boiler's combustion integrity due 
to its higher dust content. Therefore, lower sulfur coal was determined 
to be technically infeasible. As for the add-on controls (wet and dry 
scrubbers), Cargill estimated that it would cost $2,946/ton to control 
SO<INF>2</INF> with these technologies. Although no modeling was 
submitted, Cargill also questioned whether S-407 contributed to 
visibility impairment at the Sipsey Wilderness Area. Cargill submitted 
a wind rose with five years of data from the nearby Huntsville, 
Alabama, airport that indicates that winds coming from the northeast 
blow from the facility toward the Sipsey Wilderness Area only three 
percent of

[[Page 11949]]

the time. Based on Cargill's submittal, ADEM determined that none of 
the evaluated controls are cost effective for this unit.
    As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, the states have 
wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control requirements 
for ensuring reasonable progress and there are many ways for a state to 
approach identification of additional reasonable measures. In 
determining reasonable progress, states must consider, at a minimum, 
the four statutory factors, but states have flexibility in how to take 
these factors into consideration.
    Alabama applied the methodology developed by VISTAS for identifying 
appropriate sources to be considered for additional controls under 
reasonable progress for the implementation period addressed by this 
SIP, which ends in 2018. Using this methodology, ADEM first identified 
those emissions and emissions units most likely to have an impact on 
visibility in the State's Class I area. Units with emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF> with a relative contribution of at least a one percent 
to the visibility impairment at any Class I area were then subject to a 
reasonable progress control analysis. As noted above, of the emissions 
units in Alabama, one emissions unit at Cargill was subject to this 
analysis. ADEM concluded, based on their evaluation of the Cargill 
analyses, that no further controls were warranted at this time.
    After reviewing ADEM's methodology and analyses presented in the 
SIP materials prepared by ADEM, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's 
conclusion that no further controls are necessary at this time for S-
407. EPA proposes to agree with the State's approach of identifying the 
key pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at its Class I 
area, and considers ADEM's methodology to identify sources of 
SO<INF>2</INF> most likely to have an impact on visibility on any Class 
I area to be an appropriate methodology for narrowing the scope of the 
State's analysis. In general, EPA also proposes to find Alabama's 
evaluation of the four statutory factors for reasonable progress to be 
reasonable. In addition, EPA proposes to find that ADEM fully evaluated 
all control technologies available at the time of its analysis and 
applicable to the one emissions unit at the Cargill facility. Although 
the use of a specific threshold for assessing costs means that Alabama 
may not have fully considered other available emissions reduction 
measures above its threshold, EPA believes that the Alabama SIP still 
ensures reasonable progress. In considering Alabama's approach, EPA is 
also proposing to place great weight on the fact that there is no 
indication in the SIP submittal that Alabama, as a result of using a 
specific cost effectiveness threshold, rejected potential reasonable 
progress measures that would have had a meaningful impact on visibility 
in its Class I area. EPA notes that given the emissions reductions 
resulting from CAIR, Alabama's BART determinations, and the measures in 
nearby states, the visibility improvements projected for the affected 
Class I area are in excess of that needed to be on the uniform rate of 
progress.

B. Emissions Units Subject to CAIR Within AOI of Any Class I Area

    Nineteen emissions units identified for a reasonable progress 
control analysis are EGUs and are subject to CAIR. These EGUs, located 
at six facilities, are: Alabama Power Co--Barry Units 002, 003, 004, 
005, 006; Alabama Power Co--Gorgas Units 004, 005, 008; Alabama Power 
Co--Gaston Unit 006; Alabama Power Co--Miller Units 001, 002, 004, 005; 
TVA--Colbert Unit 014; and TVA--Widows Creek, Units 002, 004, 005, 008, 
009.
    In reaching this decision, ADEM considered the four reasonable 
progress factors set forth in EPA's RHR as they apply to the State's 
entire EGU sector (see section 7.6 of the Alabama SIP and section 
III.C.2 of EPA's TSD for this action). In particular, the State took 
into account the factors of cost and time necessary for compliance in 
view of EPA's analysis supporting CAIR. Based on the analysis, ADEM 
concluded that additional SO<INF>2</INF> control measures, beyond those 
needed to meet CAIR requirements, for Alabama's EGUs would not be 
reasonable during this first implementation period based on a 
consideration of the reasonable progress statutory factors. This 
conclusion is bolstered by the fact that visibility improvement at the 
Sipsey Wilderness Area is projected to exceed the uniform rate of 
progress in this first implementation period. EPA proposes to find 
acceptable Alabama's methodology and determination that no additional 
controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for SO<INF>2</INF> for affected 
Alabama EGUs for the first implementation period.

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

    1. Non-EGUs Subject to BART.
    At both the International Paper-Courtland Mill and the Solutia, 
Inc., facilities, all five units identified as being subject to 
analysis for reasonable progress for the Sipsey Wilderness Area are 
subject to BART and subsequently were evaluated for BART controls. ADEM 
believes that BART is equivalent to reasonable progress for these five 
units, and thus, is not requiring any additional controls for 
reasonable progress. As discussed in EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance, since the BART analysis is based, in part, on an assessment 
of many of the same factors that must be addressed in establishing the 
RPGs, EPA believes that it is reasonable to conclude that any control 
requirements imposed in the BART determination also satisfy the RPG-
related requirements for source review in the first implementation 
period.\14\ Thus, EPA proposes to agree with the State's conclusions 
that BART satisfies reasonable progress for the first implementation 
period for these five non-EGU emissions units at International Paper-
Courtland Mill and the Solutia facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, pages 4.2-4-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Other Units Found Not Subject to a Reasonable Progress Control 
Analysis.
    Four other emissions units at three Alabama facilities were 
determined to not be subject to a reasonable progress control analysis 
(see Table 4). ADEM initially identified one emissions unit, a sulfuric 
acid plant at the Akzo Nobel facility, which met the State's minimum 
threshold for reasonable progress evaluation. ADEM determined that the 
2018 projected SO<INF>2</INF> emissions rate for Akzo Nobel's sulfuric 
acid plant exceeded the allowable emissions rate for that unit. When 
the analysis was revised to incorporate the allowable emissions rate, 
the contribution from the sulfuric acid unit was below the State's one 
percent contribution threshold for consideration.
    ADEM had initially determined that a sulfur recovery unit at 
Escambia was contributing one percent or more to the sulfate visibility 
impairment at the Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana. It is the 
responsibility of the state in which the Class I area resides to 
determine which sources need to be assessed to evaluate for reasonable 
progress for that state's Class I area. Subsequently, the State of 
Louisiana completed its analyses for the Breton area and did not 
identify this unit as meeting Louisiana's minimum threshold for 
evaluation for reasonable progress, and did not request a reasonable 
progress analysis for this source. Alabama also notes in its SIP that 
this unit at Escambia took a permit limit of approximately 7,963 tons 
of actual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions (equivalent to approximately a 40 
percent reduction in emissions) so

[[Page 11950]]

that it would not be subject to BART. The State issued a permit 
enforcing this limit in 2006.
    For the St. Marks Wilderness area in Florida, ADEM initially 
determined that two emissions units at the Sanders Lead Company met 
Alabama's minimum threshold for reasonable progress evaluation. 
Subsequently, the State of Florida completed its analyses and did not 
identify these units as meeting its minimum threshold for evaluation 
for reasonable progress and did not request a reasonable progress 
analysis of these units. Based on consultations with the States of 
Florida and Louisiana, Alabama conducted no further evaluation of the 
three emissions units at Escambia and Sanders Lead.
6. BART
    BART is an element of Alabama's LTS for the first implementation 
period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) 
An identification of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an assessment 
of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART, and (c) a 
determination of the BART controls. These components, as addressed by 
ADEM and ADEM's findings, are discussed as follows.

A. BART-Eligible Sources

    The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. ADEM identified the 
BART-eligible sources in Alabama by utilizing the three eligibility 
criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40 
CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within 
one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the 
emissions units were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and were 
in existence on August 7, 1977; and (3) these units have the potential 
to emit 250 tons or more per year of any visibility-impairing 
pollutant.
    The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF> and direct PM (including both PM<INF>10</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to 
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from 
a source impair visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. VISTAS modeling 
demonstrated that VOC from anthropogenic sources and ammonia from point 
sources are not significant visibility-impairing pollutants in Alabama, 
as discussed in section IV.C.3. of this action. Based on the VISTAS 
modeling, analyses of spatial and temporal distributions of ammonia 
concentrations indicate that the State's point sources are not 
anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of 
visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes.
B. BART-Subject Sources
    The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e., those 
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to 
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review 
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute 
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the 
BART Guidelines, Alabama required each of its BART-eligible sources to 
develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their 
contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
    1. Modeling Methodology.
    The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \15\ modeling 
system (CALPUFF) or another appropriate model to predict the visibility 
impacts from a single source on a Class I area, and therefore, to 
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is 
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that EPA believes that CALPUFF 
is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for 
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 
FR 39162). Alabama, in coordination with VISTAS, used the CALPUFF 
modeling system to determine whether individual sources in Alabama were 
subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Note that EPA's reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire 
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different 
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, 
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the 
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF 
modeling system are available from the model developer on the 
following Web site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling 
protocol for making individual source attributions and suggest that 
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues 
prior to modeling. The VISTAS states, including Alabama, developed a 
``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.'' 
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, 
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development 
and review of the VISTAS protocol.
    VISTAS developed a post-processing approach to use the new IMPROVE 
equation with the CALPUFF model results so that the BART analyses could 
consider both the old and new IMPROVE equations. Alabama's 
justification included a method to process the CALPUFF output and a 
rationale on the benefits of using the new IMPROVE equation, in 
Appendix B of its July 15, 2008, submittal.
    2. Contribution Threshold.
    For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to 
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set 
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single 
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at 
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that ``[a] single source that 
is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be considered 
to `cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that 
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source 
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across 
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for 
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment 
should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' The Guidelines affirm that 
states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the 
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 
Class I area justifies this approach.
    Alabama used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview for 
determining which sources are subject to BART and concluded that the 
threshold of 0.5 deciview was appropriate in this situation. ADEM 
concluded that, considering the results of the visibility impacts 
modeling conducted, a 0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate and a 
lower threshold was not warranted since there is a clear spatial 
variability of sources across the State. ADEM notes that it does not 
have a technical justification for lowering the threshold based on 
consideration of multiple plume interaction. In addition, there are a 
limited number of BART-eligible sources in close proximity to Class I 
areas. The State also believes that 0.5 deciview is sufficiently 
stringent since it is half of the threshold established by EPA for 
causing visibility impairment. As stated in the BART Guidelines, where 
a state concludes that

[[Page 11951]]

a large number of these BART-eligible sources within proximity of a 
Class I area justify a lower threshold, it may warrant establishing a 
lower contribution threshold. See 70 FR 39161-39162 (July 6, 2005). EPA 
proposes to agree with Alabama that the overall impacts of these 
sources are not sufficient to warrant a lower contribution threshold 
and that a 0.5 deciview threshold was appropriate in this instance.
    3. Identification of Sources Subject to BART.
    Alabama identified 43 facilities with BART-eligible sources. All of 
Alabama's 43 BART-eligible sources were required by the State to submit 
BART exemption modeling demonstrations. Alabama found that three of its 
BART-eligible sources, Solutia-Decatur, International Paper-Courtland, 
and Escambia Operating Co-Big Escambia Creek, had modeled visibility 
impacts of more than Alabama's 0.5 deciview threshold for BART 
exemption. Escambia took permit limits to no longer be subject to BART. 
Solution-Decatur and International Paper-Courtland are considered to be 
subject to BART and submitted State permit applications including their 
proposed BART determinations.
    Of the 41 exempted sources, three were exempted because they 
emitted only VOC in excess of 250 tons per year, three accepted permit 
limits which reduced their potential to emit to below 250 tons per year 
of any affected pollutant, and one, Escambia, took permit limits that 
reduced its impact to below 0.5 deciview.
    The 34 remaining sources are not subject to BART as they modeled 
visibility impacts less than a 0.5 deciview at the affected Class I 
areas. This modeling involved emissions of NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>2</INF>, and PM<INF>10</INF>, as applicable to individual 
facilities. Eight of the 34 sources are power plants (i.e., Alabama 
Electric Coop--Lowman, Alabama Power Co--Barry, Alabama Power Co--EC 
Gaston, Alabama Power Co--Gorgas, Alabama Power Co--Greene Co, Alabama 
Power Co--Miller, TVA--Colbert, and TVA--Widows Creek). Only 
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions were used in the modeling for EGU sources. 
The SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> BART-eligible emissions were not 
modeled, because Alabama opted to have CAIR satisfy BART for 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> for affected CAIR EGUs, as allowed 
under the regional haze regulations. The remaining 26 non-EGU sources 
demonstrated that they are not subject to BART since they modeled less 
than a 0.5 deciview visibility impact at the affected Class I areas. 
Table 5 identifies the 43 BART-eligible sources located in Alabama and 
identifies the two sources subject to BART.

       Table 5--Alabama BART-Eligible and Subject-to-BART Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART:
    Solutia--Decatur
    International Paper Co--Courtland
Facilities With Unit(s) Not Subject to BART
    EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) Exempt Sources \16\
        Alabama Electric Coop--Lowman
        Alabama Power Co--Barry
        Alabama Power Co--EC Gaston
        Alabama Power Co--Gorgas
        Alabama Power Co--Greene Co
        Alabama Power Co--Miller
        TVA--Colbert
        TVA--Widows Creek
    Non-EGUs Exempt with Additional Model-Based Emissions Limits
        Escambia Operating Co--Big Escambia Creek
    Non-EGUs Exempt with Potential Emissions Limits below 250 Tons per
     Year
        Mobile Energy Services
        Rock Tenn (Gulf States Paper)
        Tronox, LLC (Kerr McGee Chemical)
    Non-EGU Exempt for VOC Only Emissions
        3M Company, Decatur Plant
        Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp
        Wise Alloys LLC, Alloys Plant
    Non-EGUs Exempt by BART Modeling
        American Cast Iron Pipe
        Boise White Paper
        Bowater Inc.--Alabama
        BP Amoco Chemicals
        Carmeuse Lime & Stone
        CEMEX, Inc.
        Chemical Lime Co--Alabaster
        Chemical Lime Co--Montevallo
        ConocoPhillips Co--Chatom
        Degussa Corporation
        Ft James-Pennington--Naheola
        Hunt Refining Co--Tuscaloosa
        International Paper Co--Prattville
        International Paper Co--Riverdale
        JSC Brewton (Smurfit Stone)
        Lehigh Cement
        MeadWestvaco--Mahrt Mill
        National Cement Co of Alabama
        Oak Grove Resources
        Sanders Lead Co
        Shell Chemical Co--Saraland
        Sloss Industries
        US Pipe & Co--Bessemer

[[Page 11952]]

 
        US Steel--Fairfield
        Weyerhaeuser
        Vintage Petroleum, Inc.--Flomaton
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy 
BART for NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> for affected CAIR EGUs was 
fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, 
the BART assessments for CAIR EGUs for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> and other provisions in this SIP revision are based on 
CAIR. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of 
the Alabama regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's 
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the D.C. Circuit 
to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR 82219. Consequently, EPA is not taking action 
in this proposed rulemaking to address the State's reliance on CAIR to 
meet certain regional haze requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. Alabama relied 
on CAIR to satisfy BART for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> for 
its EGUs in CAIR, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> were not analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. BART Determinations
    Three BART-eligible sources (i.e., Solutia-Decatur, International 
Paper-Courtland, and Escambia-Big Escambia Creek) had modeled 
visibility impacts of more than Alabama's 0.5 deciview threshold for 
BART exemption. Escambia accepted permit limits to reduce its 
visibility impacts to below 0.5 deciview. Only Solutia-Decatur and 
International Paper-Courtland are therefore considered to be subject to 
BART. Consequently, they each submitted permit applications to the 
State that included their proposed BART determinations.
    In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine the level of 
control that represents BART for each source, the State first reviewed 
existing controls on these units to assess whether these constituted 
the best controls currently available, then identified what other 
technically feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the 
technically feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. 
The State's evaluations and conclusions, and EPA's assessment, are 
summarized below.
    1. Solutia--Decatur.
    Solutia--Decatur has five BART-eligible emissions units that 
comprise the BART-eligible source. Boiler No. 5 is a 290 MMBtu per hour 
(MMBtu/hr) coal-fired spreader-stoker boiler; Boiler No. 6 is a 320 
MMBtu/hr coal-fired spreader-stoker boiler; Boiler No. 7 is a 536.1 
MMBtu/hr pulverized coal-fired boiler; and Coking Boilers No. 1 and No. 
2 are each 384 MMBtu/hr coal-fired stoker boilers. Each of the boilers 
is equipped with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for particulate 
control, and the boilers have SO<INF>2</INF> emissions limits to 
address modeled SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS exceedances in the area. In 
addition, Solutia has installed a rotating opposed fired air system 
(ROFA) combustion control to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> formation on Boiler 
No. 7. The manufacturer has guaranteed a NO<INF>X</INF> reduction of 48 
percent with the system. This unit is subject to New Source Performance 
Standards, Subpart D. As required by Subpart D, this boiler has 
limitations for particulate, SO<INF>2</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions.
    ADEM has concluded that no additional particulate controls would be 
reasonable for the BART units at Solutia. For Boilers No. 5 and 6, 
stack tests have shown an overall PM control efficiency for the ESPs to 
be 98.8 percent. For Boiler 7, the PM control efficiency has been 
estimated from stack tests as 99 percent. Although the coking boilers 
have not been tested, the particulate control efficiency from the ESPs 
has been estimated at 96 percent. ADEM evaluated the option of adding a 
baghouse to each of the boilers and coking units following the existing 
ESPs. The cost effectiveness of this control option ranged from $5,462 
to $79,995 per ton of particulate and the visibility improvement for 
the 98th percentile day ranged from 0.19 to 0.52 deciview.
    ADEM determined that no additional controls for Boiler 5, Boiler 6, 
and the coking boilers would be required for the control of 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions for BART. However, Boiler 7 would be required 
to meet an emission limit of 0.36 lb NO<INF>X</INF>/MMBtu with the 
installation of a ROFA system or a comparable technology. Although the 
basis for the installation of the ROFA system for Boiler No.7 was the 
Boiler MACT, the system has been installed and was considered as 
existing equipment for this case-by-case BART analysis. Solutia 
evaluated additional control options for NO<INF>X</INF>. The available 
combustion control options included low excess air, burners out of 
service, biased burner firing, overfire air, low NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners, and reburn. Available post-combustion control options included 
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic 
reduction (SCR). Modeling for all of the additional NO<INF>X</INF> 
control options evaluated indicated relatively small to no reduction in 
visibility impacts. No deciview improvements were modeled for the 98th 
percentile day and only 0.04-0.07 deciview improvement was modeled on 
the maximum high day.
    For the control of SO<INF>2</INF>, ADEM has determined BART for 
Boilers 5 and 6 to be an emissions limit of 1.40 lbs SO<INF>2</INF>/
MMBtu. Boiler 7, the largest of the emissions units subject to BART, 
would be required to meet a limitation of 0.47 lb SO<INF>2</INF>/MMBtu 
with the installation of a flue solvent injection (FSI) system or a 
comparable technology. ADEM concluded that the addition of any controls 
for the coking units would negate the viability of the coking units; 
therefore, no additional controls were proposed for these units. 
Solutia evaluated the utilization of lower sulfur coals, and post-
combustion flue gas desulfurization (which would include sorbent 
injection or wet scrubbers). The use of low sulfur coal (1.4 lbs 
SO<INF>2</INF>/MMBtu) in Boilers 5 and 6 would provide a reduction of 
approximately 43 percent. Currently, Boiler No. 7 is already required 
to utilize low sulfur coal. Therefore, the utilization of lower sulfur 
coal would only provide a reduction of seven percent. In combination 
with the ROFA system, Solutia has a manufacturer guarantee that the use 
of a FSI system would reduce SO<INF>2</INF> by as much as 60 percent in 
Boiler No. 7.
    EPA proposes to agree with Alabama's analyses and conclusions for 
the BART emissions units located at this Solutia facility. EPA has 
reviewed the ADEM analyses and concluded they were conducted in a 
manner that is consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air 
Pollution Control Cost Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo). Therefore, the conclusions reflect a reasonable 
application of EPA's guidance to this source.
    EPA reviewed the ADEM BART determination for Solutia--Decatur and 
proposes to concur with Alabama's analyses and conclusions for BART for 
this facility. EPA believes that the analyses were conducted consistent 
with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual 
and

[[Page 11953]]

that they reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to this 
source.
    2. International Paper--Courtland Mill.
    International Paper's Courtland Mill has seven BART-eligible 
emissions units that comprise the BART-eligible source. No. 1 
Combination Boiler is a 398 MMBtu/hr combination fuel boiler that fires 
bark, natural gas, and fuel oil and is operated as a swing boiler. The 
boiler vents to a venturi scrubber where the gases are scrubbed with 
water to remove PM. No. 2 Combination Boiler is a 679 MMBtu/hr 
combination fuel boiler that fires coal, bark, and natural gas. The 
primary fuel for this boiler is bark. The other primary fuel for this 
boiler is coal. The No. 2 Combination Boiler is vented to two ESPs to 
remove PM. The flue gas is then vented to a high pressure venturi 
scrubber for the removal of SO<INF>2</INF>. The Package Boiler is a 365 
MMBtu/hr boiler that is utilized as a back-up boiler and is fired by 
natural gas. The Package Boiler has no external emissions control 
devices. The No. 2 Recovery Furnace is a 470 MMBtu/hr recovery furnace 
that is designed to fire black liquor with natural gas and fuel oil as 
supplemental fuels. The combustion gases from the furnace are vented to 
an ESP for PM control. The No. 2 Smelt Dissolving Tank is a recovery 
operation for the No. 2 Recovery Furnace. The No. 2 Smelt Dissolving 
Tank is vented through a separate scrubber system for PM control. No. 1 
and No. 2 Lime Kilns convert lime mud to lime. Both the No. 1 and No. 2 
Lime Kilns are fired with natural gas and/or fuel oil, have low 
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, and are vented to a scrubber to control 
particulate emissions.
    ADEM concluded that BART for PM is the current suite of installed 
add-on controls which control particulates at the International Paper-
Courtland mill and have efficiencies of greater than 90 percent.
    For SO<INF>2</INF>, ADEM determined no additional controls to be 
BART. International Paper evaluated five control options for the No. 1 
Combination Boiler and the No. 2 Recovery Boiler. For International 
Paper-Courtland, the 98th percentile 24-hour visibility improvement 
from the SO<INF>2</INF> controls evaluated for these two units ranged 
from 0.013 deciview to 0.063 deciview. The No.2 Combination Boiler is 
already well controlled for SO<INF>2</INF> and was not evaluated 
further. Although both the Package Boiler and the No. 2 Smelt 
Dissolving Tank are BART-eligible sources for SO<INF>2</INF>, a control 
effectiveness review was not performed since both of these sources only 
emit approximately one ton per year of SO<INF>2</INF>. The No. 1 and 
No. 2 Lime Kilns are also BART-eligible sources for SO<INF>2</INF>. 
However, since both these lime kilns are subject to and are complying 
with MACT standard 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart MM through the use of wet 
scrubbers, and since the inherent nature of lime kilns minimize 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, the current approach to MACT compliance was 
considered BART for SO<INF>2</INF> for these lime kilns.
    For NO<INF>X</INF> ADEM concluded that the control of 
NO<INF>X</INF> is only reasonable for the No. 2 Combination Boiler, 
which is required to install low NO<INF>X</INF> burners to meet BART. 
Installation and operation of these burners is projected to result in a 
30 percent reduction in the unit's emissions. For the No. 1 Combination 
Boiler, ADEM required International Paper Courtland to either install 
low NO<INF>X</INF> Burners or only operate the No. 1 Combination Boiler 
when any of the No. 2 Combination Boiler, the No. 2 Recovery Furnace, 
the No. 3 Combination Boiler, or the No. 3 Recovery Furnace is either 
not operating or in periods of start-up of shutdown. International 
Paper reviewed seven additional NO<INF>X</INF> control options for the 
No. 1 and No. 2 Combination boilers and the Package Boiler. For 
International Paper-Courtland, the 98th percentile 24-hour visibility 
improvement from the evaluated NO<INF>X</INF> controls on these two 
units ranged from 0.013 deciview to 0.097 deciview. For NO<INF>X</INF>, 
both the No. 1 and No. 2 Lime Kilns currently employ low NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners in the form of combustion flame tuning to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions and no other controls where deemed feasible. No additional 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls were identified as being available for the No. 
2 Recovery Boiler or the package natural gas boiler.
    EPA reviewed the ADEM BART determination for International Paper--
Courtland and proposes to concur with Alabama's analyses and 
conclusions for BART for this facility. EPA believes that the analyses 
were conducted consistent with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air 
Pollution Control Cost Manual and that they reflect a reasonable 
application of EPA's guidance to this source.
    3. Enforceability of Limits.
    Alabama adopted the BART emissions limits for Solutia-Decatur and 
International Paper Co-Courtland Mill into the State's regional haze 
SIP (see Tables 6 and 7). ADEM incorporated the BART emissions limits 
into state operating permits and submitted copies of these BART permit 
provisions for information as part of the State's regional haze SIP 
(see Appendix H-5 of the Alabama regional haze submittal). The BART 
emissions limits will also be added to the facilities' title V permits 
according to the procedures established in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR 
part 71.

                          Table 6--Summary of BART Emissions Limits for Solutia-Decatur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Emission limitations
            Emissions unit            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NOX                      SO2                      PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler 5.............................  101.22 lb/hr...........  1.40 lb/MMBtu & 406 lb/  0.12 lb/MMBtu & 34.8 lb/
                                                                 hr.                      hr.
Boiler 6.............................  109.72 lb/hr...........  1.40 lb/MMBtu & 448 lb/  0.12 lb/MMBtu & 38.4 lb/
                                                                 hr.                      hr.
Boiler 7.............................  0.36 lb/MMbtu & 193 lb/  0.47 lb/MMBtu & 252 lb/  0.10 lb/MMBtu & 64.33
                                        hr.                      hr.                      lb/hr.
Coker 1..............................  104.43 lb/hr...........  3.57 lb/MMBtu & 1,370.1  0.12 lb/MMBtu.
                                                                 lb/hr.
Coker 2..............................  104.43 lb/hr...........  3.57 lb/MMBtu & 1,370.1  0.12 lb/MMBtu.
                                                                 lb/hr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 11954]]


                   Table 7--Summary of BART Emissions Limits for International Paper-Courtland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Emission limitations
            Emissions unit            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NOX                      SO2                      PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 1 Combination Boiler.............  93.15 lb/hr or           147.3 lb/hr............  0.17 gr/SDCF\17\ @ 50%
                                        operational                                       Excess Air.
                                        limitations.
No. 2 Combination Boiler.............  338.13 lb/hr...........  1.20 lb/MMBtu & 65.5 lb/ 0.10 lb/MMBtu.
                                                                 hr.
Package Boiler.......................  0.20 MMBtu &...........  1.80 lb/MMbtu..........  0.10 lb/MMBtu.
                                       <1,200 million ft\3\ of
                                        natural gas/12 month
                                        period.
No. 2 Recovery Furnace...............  152 lb/hr..............  432 lb/hr..............  0.044 gr/SDCF* at 8% O2
                                                                                          and 67 lb/hr.
No. 2 Smelt Dissolving Tank..........  Not Applicable.........  0.20 lb/hr.............  0.20 lb/ton of black
                                                                                          liquor solids.
No. 1 Lime Kiln......................  3.5 lb/hr..............  0.10 lb/hr.............  1.0 lb/air dried ton of
                                                                                          pulp.
No. 2 Lime Kiln......................  19.40 lb/hr............  0.23 lb/hr.............  0.067 gr/sdcf at 10%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEM also adopted BART exemption provisions for Rock-Tenn Mill 
Company, LLC (previously Gulf States Paper); Escambia Operating 
Company, LLC; Mobile Energy Services Company, LLC; and Tronox LLC 
(previously Kerr McGee Chemical), which were added to the operating 
permits of these four facilities. Copies of these operating permits 
were also included for information in Appendix H-5 of Alabama's 
regional haze SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The term, ``gr/SDCF,'' is the abbreviation used in the 
Alabama regional haze SIP submittal for ``grains per dry standard 
cubic foot.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The compliance date for the newly adopted limitations for Solutia-
Decatur, International Paper Co-Courtland Mill, and Escambia Operating 
Company-Big Escambia Creek, is January 1, 2013. The BART exemption 
provisions were effective upon issuance of the state permit.
7. RPGs
    The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to establish RPGs 
for each Class I area within the state (expressed in deciviews) that 
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility. 
VISTAS modeled visibility improvements under existing Federal and state 
regulations for the period 2004-2018, and additional control measures 
which the VISTAS states planned to implement in the first 
implementation period. At the time of VISTAS modeling, some of the 
other states with sources potentially impacting visibility at the 
Alabama Class I area had not yet made final control determinations for 
BART and/or reasonable progress, and thus, these controls were not 
included in the modeling submitted by Alabama. Any controls resulting 
from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions 
and resulting visibility improvement, which give further assurances 
that Alabama will achieve its RPGs. The modeling demonstrates that the 
2018 base control scenario provides for an improvement in visibility 
better than the uniform rate of progress for the Sipsey Wilderness Area 
for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan 
and ensures no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days 
over the same period.
    As shown in Table 8 below, Alabama's RPG for the 20 percent worst 
days provide greater visibility improvement by 2018 than the uniform 
rate of progress for the State's Class I area (i.e., 24.80 deciviews in 
2018). Also, the RPG for the 20 percent best days provides greater 
visibility improvement by 2018 than current best day conditions. The 
modeling supporting the analysis of these RPGs is consistent with EPA 
guidance prior to the CAIR remand. The regional haze provisions specify 
that a state may not adopt a RPG that represents less visibility 
improvement than is expected to result from other CAA requirements 
during the implementation period. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, 
the CAIR states with Class I areas, like Alabama, took into account 
emissions reductions anticipated from CAIR in determining their 2018 
RPGs.\18\ Reliance on CAIR as part of a state's LTS to achieve the 
state-adopted RPGs is discussed in section IV.C of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas similarly 
relied on CAIR emission reductions within the state to address some 
or all of their contribution to visibility impairment in other 
states' Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area state(s) used 
to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). Certain surrounding non-
CAIR states also relied on reductions due to CAIR in nearby states 
to develop their regional haze SIP submittals.

                                           Table 8--Alabama 2018 RPGs
                                                 [In deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2018 RPG--20    Uniform rate                    2018 RPG--20
                                     Baseline      percent worst  of progress at     Baseline      percent best
          Class I Area             visibility--        days          2018-- 20     visibility--        days
                                    20 percent     (improvement    percent worst    20 percent     (improvement
                                    worst days    from baseline)       days          best days    from baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipsey Wilderness Area..........           29.03    23.53 (5.50)           24.80           15.57    14.22 (1.35)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RPGs for the Class I area in Alabama are based on modeled 
projections of future conditions that were developed using the best 
available information at the time the analysis was done. These 
projections can be expected to change as additional information 
regarding future conditions becomes available. For example, new sources 
may be built, existing sources may shut down or modify production in 
response to changed economic circumstances,

[[Page 11955]]

and facilities may change their emissions characteristics as they 
install control equipment to comply with new rules. It would be both 
impractical and resource-intensive to require a state to continually 
revise the RPGs every time an event affecting these future projections 
changed.
    EPA recognized the problems of a rigid requirement to meet a long-
term goal based on modeled projections of future visibility conditions, 
and addressed the uncertainties associated with RPGs in several ways. 
EPA made clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a mandatory standard 
which must be achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR at 35733. At the 
same time, EPA established a requirement for a midcourse review and, if 
necessary, correction of the states' regional haze plans. See 40 CFR 
52.308(g). In particular, the RHR calls for a five-year progress review 
after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The purpose of this 
progress review is to assess the effectiveness of emissions management 
strategies in meeting the RPGs and to provide an assessment of whether 
current implementation strategies are sufficient for the state or 
affected states to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, based on its 
assessment, that the RPGs for a Class I area will not be met, the RHR 
requires the state to take appropriate action. See 40 CFR 52.308(h). 
The nature of the appropriate action will depend on the basis for the 
state's conclusion that the current strategies are insufficient to meet 
the RPGs. Alabama specifically committed to follow this process in the 
LTS portion of its submittal. Accordingly, EPA proposes to approve 
Alabama's RPGs for the Sipsey Wilderness Area.

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements

    EPA's visibility regulations direct states to coordinate their RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as 
explained in sections III.F and III.G of this action. Under EPA's RAVI 
regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must address any integral 
vistas identified by the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 
vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the 
mandatory Class I area of a specific landmark or panorama located 
outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I area.'' Visibility in any 
mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista associated with that 
area. The FLMs did not identify any integral vistas in Alabama. In 
addition, the Class I area in Alabama is neither experiencing RAVI, nor 
are any of its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Thus, the 
Alabama regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly address the two 
requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze with the RAVI 
LTS and monitoring provisions. However, Alabama previously made a 
commitment to address RAVI should the FLM certify visibility impairment 
from an individual source.\19\ EPA proposes to find that this regional 
haze submittal appropriately supplements and augments Alabama's RAVI 
visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the 
monitoring and LTS provisions as summarized below in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Alabama submitted its visibility SIP revisions addressing 
RAVI on November 20, 1985, which EPA approved on February 10, 1986 
(51 FR 4908).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its July 15, 2008, submittal, ADEM updated its visibility 
monitoring program and developed an LTS to address regional haze. Also 
in this submittal, ADEM affirmed its commitment to complete items 
required in the future under EPA's RHR. Specifically, ADEM made a 
commitment to review and revise its regional haze implementation plan 
and submit a plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every 10 years 
thereafter. See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance with the requirements 
listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) of EPA's regional haze regulations and 40 
CFR 51.306(c) of the RAVI LTS regulations, ADEM made a commitment to 
submit a report to EPA on progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory 
Class I area located within Alabama and in each mandatory Class I area 
located outside Alabama which may be affected by emissions from within 
Alabama. The progress report is required to be in the form of a SIP 
revision and is due every five years following the initial submittal of 
the regional haze SIP. Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for 
RAVI and regional haze, Alabama will rely on the IMPROVE network for 
compliance purposes, in addition to any RAVI monitoring that may be 
needed in the future. See 40 CFR 51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the 
Alabama new source review (NSR) rules, previously approved in the 
State's SIP, continue to provide a framework for review and 
coordination with the FLMs on new sources which may have an adverse 
impact on visibility in either form (i.e., RAVI and/or regional haze) 
in any federal Class I area.
    The original Alabama visibility SIP submitted to EPA November 20, 
1985, addressing the NSR and monitoring strategy requirements in 40 CFR 
51.307 and 40 CFR 51.305, respectively, was supplemented by an EPA 
regulation (40 CFR 52.61) on November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45138), which 
incorporates 40 CFR 52.29 into the Alabama SIP and continues to be in 
effect. Because the July 15, 2008, submittal appropriately addresses 
the LTS requirements and supersedes these previous requirements, EPA is 
proposing to rescind the federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 and rely 
on the provisions in Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal to meet 
these requirements.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Alabama is the 
IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2. of this action, there 
is currently one IMPROVE site in Alabama, which serves as the 
monitoring site for the Sipsey Wilderness Area. The IMPROVE 
measurements are central to Alabama's regional haze monitoring 
strategy. Each IMPROVE monitor represents a different airshed.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for 
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the July 15, 2008, 
regional haze submittal. In the submittal, Alabama states its intention 
to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze 
monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional 
haze implementation periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly 
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding 
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System 
(VIEWS) Web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to 
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. 
Alabama is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS 
or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the 
IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, there is long-term limited 
monitoring by FLMs which provides additional insight into progress 
toward regional haze goals. Such measurements include a 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Federal Reference Method monitor.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and May 2007, the State Air Directors from the 
VISTAS states held formal interstate

[[Page 11956]]

consultation meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the 
methodology proposed by VISTAS for identifying sources to evaluate for 
reasonable progress. The states invited FLM and EPA representatives to 
participate and to provide additional feedback. The Directors discussed 
the results of analyses showing contributions to visibility impairment 
from states to each of the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    Additionally, ADEM hosted a meeting amongst the States of Alabama, 
Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana in January 2007 to discuss issues 
specific to the Breton Wilderness Area located in Louisiana. Also, 
Louisiana participated in a June 2007 FLM/EPA meeting hosted by VISTAS 
in Asheville, North Carolina, where each state discussed the process 
used to evaluate sources for reasonable progress. ADEM also 
participated in Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) 
meetings during development of its SIP to keep abreast of CENRAP's and 
Louisiana's analyses and plans for Breton with respect to regional 
haze.
    ADEM has evaluated the impact of Alabama sources on Class I areas 
in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is located is 
responsible for determining which sources, both inside and outside of 
that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls. Because many 
of these states had not yet defined their criteria for identifying 
sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, Alabama applied its AOI 
methodology to identify sources in the State that have emissions units 
with evaluated visibility impacts large enough at Class I areas outside 
Alabama to potentially warrant further evaluation and analysis. Alabama 
identified three non-EGU emissions units at two facilities in the State 
as meeting its minimum threshold for a reasonable progress control 
evaluation at two Class I areas outside of the State, i.e., Breton 
Wilderness Area in Louisiana and St. Marks Wilderness Area in Florida. 
Based on an evaluation of the four reasonable progress statutory 
factors, Alabama determined that there are no additional control 
measures for these three Alabama non-EGU emissions units that would be 
reasonable to implement to mitigate visibility impacts in Class I areas 
in these neighboring states. Additionally, Alabama identified EGUs in 
the State impacting Class I areas in the Joyce-Kilmer Wilderness area 
in North Carolina (TVA-Widows Creek: Point ID 008); the Breton area in 
Louisiana (Alabama Power Company--Barry: Point ID 002, 003, 004, 005); 
and the Cohutta Wilderness Area in Georgia (TVA-Widows Creek: Point ID 
009, 008). Since these EGUs are subject to CAIR, Alabama determined 
that no additional SO<INF>2</INF> controls beyond CAIR are reasonable 
for this implementation period for these EGUs. ADEM has consulted with 
these states regarding its reasonable progress control evaluations 
showing no cost-effective controls available for those emissions units 
in Alabama contributing at least one percent to visibility impairment 
at Class I areas in the states. The documentation for these formal 
consultations is provided in Appendix J of Alabama's SIP.
    In addition to Alabama's independent evaluation of the impacts of 
its sources on neighboring states' Class I areas, the State received 
letters from the States of Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, which 
are included in Appendix J of Alabama's regional haze SIP submittal. 
North Carolina's letter to Alabama, dated August 2, 2007, states that 
there are no emissions units in North Carolina that contribute one 
percent or greater to visibility impairment at the Sipsey Wilderness 
Area. North Carolina identified one Alabama emissions unit, TVA-Widows 
Creek (Point ID 008) in Jackson County, Alabama, as meeting North 
Carolina's threshold for a reasonable progress control evaluation, and 
requested that Alabama share its reasonable progress control evaluation 
for this unit. Because this unit is subject to CAIR and has a scrubber 
already installed, Alabama has determined that no additional controls 
beyond CAIR are reasonable for this unit for this first implementation 
period. The letter from Georgia asked Alabama to share its final list 
of emissions units for reasonable progress evaluation. Correspondence 
from Florida in May 2007 initially identified four emissions units at 
two Alabama facilities, Sanders Lead (Point ID 003 and 008) and 
Continental Carbon Company (Point ID 003 and 008), on its working list 
as meeting Florida's threshold for a reasonable progress control 
evaluation. In November 2007, Florida sent the final list of units 
meeting the State's threshold to evaluate for reasonable progress 
control, which did not identify any units in Alabama.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on Class I 
areas in Alabama, the State identified two emissions units at Georgia 
Power Company-Plant Yates that contribute one percent or greater to 
visibility impairment at the Sipsey Wilderness Area. These two EGUs are 
subject to CAIR. Therefore, ADEM did not request further evaluation of 
these units from the State of Georgia.
    As noted above, ADEM has consulted with Florida, Georgia, North 
Carolina, and Louisiana regarding the emissions units in Alabama 
contributing at least one percent to visibility impairment at Class I 
areas in those states. The documentation for these formal consultations 
is provided in Appendix J of Alabama's SIP and is also summarized in 
the SIP Narrative. EPA proposes to find that Alabama has adequately 
addressed the consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately 
documented its consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, Alabama and the nine other member states 
worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the 
regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. The proposed regional haze 
plan for Alabama was out for FLM and EPA discussions in the November to 
December 2007 period. Alabama subsequently modified the plan to address 
FLM comments received in 2007 and provided the revised plan for full 
public comment in the March to April 2008 time period. On the initial 
November 2007 draft plan, the FLM comments expressed concern regarding 
the State's proposal to use the glidepath data points as the RPGs for 
the best and worst days at the Sipsey Wilderness Area instead of the 
modeled levels, stating this does not meet the RHR. The State corrected 
this approach in the proposed plan issued for public comment. The FLMs 
requested that Alabama add more information from the appendices into 
the main body of the SIP submittal regarding the impacts of sources 
outside of the State on the Sipsey Wilderness Area and the impacts of 
Alabama sources on out-of-state Class I areas. The State augmented the 
SIP narrative with the requested information in the proposed plan 
issued for public comment. To address the requirement for continuing 
consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), ADEM 
made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing consultation with the FLMs on 
regional haze issues throughout implementation of its plan. ADEM also 
affirms in the SIP that FLM consultation is required for those sources 
subject to the State's NSR regulations.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As summarized in section IV.D of this action, consistent with 40 
CFR 51.308(g), ADEM affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress

[[Page 11957]]

report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following 
the initial submittal of the Alabama regional haze SIP. The report will 
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for the mandatory Class I 
area located within Alabama and within each mandatory Class I area 
located outside Alabama which may be affected by emissions from within 
Alabama. ADEM also offered recommendations for several technical 
improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS. 
These recommendations are discussed in detail in the Alabama submittal 
in Appendix K.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that Alabama's SIP 
needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after appropriate 
consultation Alabama agrees, today's action may be revisited or 
additional information and/or changes will be addressed in the five-
year progress report SIP revision.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Alabama 
SIP submitted by the State of Alabama on July 15, 2008, as meeting some 
of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 
169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-308, as described 
previously in this action. Also in this action, EPA is proposing to 
rescind the federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.61 that were approved into 
the Alabama SIP on November 24, 1987, and to rely on the provisions in 
Alabama's July 15, 2008, SIP submittal to meet the LTS requirements for 
RAVI at 40 CFR 51.306.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines 
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * * 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act 
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. This federal action proposes to approve 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 a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal

[[Page 11958]]

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to 
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. 
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus 
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs 
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law 
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4689 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>