[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24385-24392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9719]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-1043; A-1-FRL-9652-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maine; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Maine State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first planning period 
from 2008 through 2018. It was submitted by the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) on December 9, 2010, with 
supplemental submittals on September 14, 2011, and November 9, 2011. 
This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
EPA's rules that require States to prevent any future, and remedy any 
existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Areas 
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located 
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze 
program'').

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on May 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2010-1043. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if 
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 
4:30, excluding legal holidays
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available 
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at 
the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental 
Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta Mental Health 
Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 
02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, 
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91fcf2e6f8fdfdf8f0fce2bff0fffff4d1f4e1f0bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c1aca2b6a8adada8a0acb2efa0afafa481a4b1a0efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in 
this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On November 29, 2011, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPR) for the State of Maine. See 76 FR 73956. The NPR proposed 
approval of the Maine State Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses 
regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. It 
was submitted by the Maine DEP on December 9, 2010, with supplemental 
submittals on September 14, 2011, and November 9, 2011. Specifically, 
EPA proposed to approve Maine's December 9, 2010 SIP revision, and its 
supplements, as meeting the applicable implementing regulations found 
in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA also proposed to approve Maine's Best Achievable 
Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for several sources and to 
incorporate the license conditions that implement those determinations 
into the SIP. In addition, EPA proposed to approve Maine's low sulfur 
fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  2(A), and to 
incorporate this legislation into the Maine SIP. Furthermore, EPA is 
also proposed to approve the following Maine state regulation and 
incorporate it into the SIP: Maine Chapter 150, Control of Emissions 
from Outdoor Wood Boilers.
    A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs, 
as well as EPA's analysis of Maine's Regional Haze SIP submittal was 
provided in the NPR and is not restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received a number of comments on our proposal to approve 
Maine's Regional Haze SIP submittal. Comments were received from the 
citizen's group Credo Action and the National Park Service (NPS). A 
joint letter from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), 
the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC), the Conservation

[[Page 24386]]

Law Foundation (CLF), and the Natural Resources Council of Maine 
(collectively ``NPCA'') was also submitted. Many of the NPCA comments 
echoed comments submitted by NPS. The U.S Forest Service reiterated 
previous comments submitted on Maine's proposed rulemaking and 
acknowledge the work that the State of Maine has accomplished and 
encouraged the State of Maine to continue to reduce regional haze. The 
following discussion summarizes and responds to the relevant comments 
received on EPA's proposed approval of Maine's Regional Haze SIP.
    Comment: NPCA commented that in light of the $/ton limits accepted 
by other States (e.g., $7,300/ton in Oregon, $5,000/ton in Colorado, 
and $7,000-$10,000/ton in Wisconsin), Maine lacks a State cost 
effectiveness threshold in its Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) determinations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NPS also compared Maine's determinations of cost 
effectiveness to the determinations made by these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: While States have the option to develop a cost 
effectiveness threshold, the Regional Haze Rule does not require States 
to set a bright line threshold for cost effectiveness. Pursuant to 
Section 51.308(e)(A), the State is required to consider five factors 
when determining the appropriate level of BART control: The cost of 
compliance; the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts; any 
pollution control equipment in use at the source; the remaining useful 
life of the source; and the degree of improvement which may be 
reasonably anticipated to result from the use of such technology. Even 
though the cited States adopted a dollar per ton threshold, controls 
with costs below the established cost threshold were sometimes rejected 
when considered in conjunction with the other factors. In Oregon, only 
one BART-eligible source was subject to BART: The PGE Boardman coal-
fired EGU. Although the technology option of new Low NO<INF>X</INF> 
Burners with modified over-fire air (NLNB/MOFA) plus selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) could be considered cost effective ($1,816/
ton) for the PGE Boardman, the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality (ODEQ) rejected this technology option because adding SNCR only 
provided an additional 0.18 deciview (dv) of visibility improvement 
over NLNB/MOFA at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area and because ODEQ was 
concerned with the potential for excess ammonia emissions from the SNCR 
(commonly referred to as ammonia slip) which could result in increased 
rates of secondary particulate matter (ammonium sulfate). In addition, 
ODEQ rejected Semi-dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (SDFGD) at a cost of 
$5,535/ton SO<INF>2</INF> removed ($7,200/ton incremental cost) in 
favor for Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) at $3,370/ton SO<INF>2</INF> 
removed. See 76 FR 12651. The State of Colorado also rejected BART 
controls with a cost of control less than $5,000/ton (e.g., DSI at a 
cost of $2,482/ton SO<INF>2</INF> removed) due to minimal expected 
visibility improvement. In the case of Wisconsin, the State only has 
one non-EGU subject to BART. The BART level of control selected by the 
State for this source is $1,580/ton SO<INF>2</INF> removed and $1,868/
ton NO<INF>X</INF> removed with a combined visibility improvement of 
2.68 dv at the highest impacted Class I Area and 5.03 dv visibility 
improvement across all four Class I Areas impacted by this BART source. 
See 77 FR 11928 (February 28, 2012). In addition, all three of the 
States cited by NPCA applied a 0.5 dv minimum visibility impact 
threshold for determining what BART-eligible sources would be subject 
to BART. Maine instead decided that all BART-eligible sources, 
regardless of their impact on Class I Areas, would be subject to BART. 
Therefore, the cost effectiveness thresholds cited by NPCA are not 
comparable to Maine's determinations. The Regional Haze Rule does not 
require States to use a set threshold in evaluating cost effectiveness 
and the lack of a cost effectiveness threshold does not render Maine's 
BART determinations unreasonable.
    Comment: NPS commented that the analysis of lower sulfur fuel oil 
for Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 and 2 is incomplete, inaccurate, 
and does not follow BART Guidelines or the MANE-VU recommendations. NPS 
suggested that EPA should at least evaluate the lower sulfur residual 
oils for the Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers.
    Response: According to Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for BART 
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines), ``[F]or 
sources other than 750 MW power plants, however, States retain the 
discretion to adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines.'' See 
70 FR 39156 (July 6, 2005). Verso Androscoggin is a pulp and paper 
plant and Maine's analysis is therefore not required to follow the BART 
Guidelines. Maine has flexibility in addressing the five factors of the 
BART analysis.
    The MANE-VU recommended level of control for industrial boilers is 
the use of 0.5% sulfur in fuel <greek-i>6 oil. Maine's BART limit for 
Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers 1 and 2 requires the reduction from 
1.8% sulfur in fuel oil to the use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel oil by 
January 1, 2013. The source will, however, be subject to the MANE-VU 
recommended 0.5% sulfur in fuel limit by no later than January 1, 2018, 
pursuant to Maine's low sulfur fuel oil legislation, 38 MRSA Sec.  603-
A, sub-Sec.  2(A) \2\ which will become federally enforceable under 
today's action. Therefore these boilers will be required to meet the 
MANE-VU recommended level of control during the first planning period 
as part of the long term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/38/title38sec603-A.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPS commented that in its analysis of the switching to 
natural gas, Verso Androscoggin assumed $9.43 per thousand cubic feet 
(MCF) which is more than double the current price. NPS claimed that EPA 
must reevaluate the costs of switching to natural gas using current 
cost information.
    Response: The Verso Androscoggin analysis of switching to natural 
gas assumed $9.43/MCF based on 2009 data. The most recent data from 
U.S. Energy Information Administration indicates an increase in the 
2010 annual industrial price of natural gas to $11.23/MCF \3\ and 
monthly industrial prices are in the range of $8.61 to $12.08/MCF for 
the second half of 2011.\4\ Therefore, the use of $9.43/MCF is 
acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SME_a.htm.
    \4\ www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SME_m.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPS commented that Maine DEP improperly dismissed 
application of FGR (Flue Gas Recirculation) at Verso Androscoggin from 
further evaluation on the premise that it would result in minimal 
reductions in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. NPS commented that FGR was 
determined to be technically feasible by Verso Androscoggin and must be 
fully evaluated if SNCR is not selected as BART.
    Response: The State of Maine has flexibility as to how the factors 
of the BART analysis are weighed and is not required to conduct an 
analysis that conforms to the requirements of BART Guidelines because 
Verso Androscoggin is not a 750 MW power plant. The State determined 
that the installation of flue gas recirculation at Verso Androscoggin 
would require the enlargement of the burner openings in both boilers. 
When combined with the existing Low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, the FGR is 
only expected to result in a maximum of seven percent reduction in 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions which would not be expected to provide

[[Page 24387]]

substantial visibility improvement.\5\ EPA finds that Maine reasonably 
rejected the installation of FGR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ If FGR were installed at the facility without the already 
installed Low NO<INF>X</INF> burners it would achieve the maximum 
15% reduction in NO<INF>X</INF>. However, when combined with the 
already installed Low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, the FGR only achieves 
a further reduction of 7% from the already lower NO<INF>X</INF> 
levels generated by the Low NO<INF>X</INF> burners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPS commented that Verso Androscoggin did not follow the 
EPA's Cost Control Manual (CCM) method for evaluating add-on controls 
and Verso Androscoggin's capital recovery factor is inflated. NPS 
recalculated the cost effectiveness of the SNCR using a capital 
recovery factor using 7% interest over a 20-year life as opposed to 
12.4% interest over a 10-year life used by the State. NPS found the 
revised cost to be $5,553/ton NO<INF>X</INF> removed instead of the 
Maine DEP value of $5,973/ton NO<INF>X</INF> removed. However, due to 
the assumption of low utilization, NPS suggested that the cost-
effectiveness be reevaluated should boiler utilization increase.
    Response: The Regional Haze Rule does not require States to use 
EPA's CCM to evaluate the costs of control technologies, though it 
represents a good reference tool. See 70 FR 39104, 39127 (July 6, 
2005). The analysis provided by NPS, which used the CCM procedure for 
coal-fired EGUs (including a lower capital recovery factor than the 
State used) and EPA's IPM model, was only $420/ton less than Maine's 
cost determination, supporting the reasonableness of Maine's 
evaluation. EPA does not believe that this relatively small difference 
calculated in cost effectiveness calls into question the reasonableness 
of the State's analysis.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA rejected a similar argument in regards to the PGE 
Boardman coal-fired EGU in Oregon. In that case, use of the CCM lead 
to a cost $725/ton less than that used by Oregon. We similarly 
rejected that difference in cost effectiveness as inconsequential to 
the State's final decision. See 76 FR 38997, 39000 (July 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must determine BART eligibility and controls only during 
this first planning period and therefore Maine is not required to 
reevaluate its BART determination if utilization of the boiler 
increases. The Regional Haze Rule however makes clear that after a BART 
determination is made, the source is subject to the core requirements 
of 40 CFR 51.308(d). Therefore, consistent with the Regional Haze Rule, 
Maine may in subsequent planning periods reevaluate the controls and 
visibility impact of Verso Androscoggin as part of the State's long 
term strategy. EPA finds that Maine reasonably concluded that based on 
the current boiler 20% utilization, SNCR is not a cost effective 
control for Power Boilers 1 and 2 at Verso Androscoggin.
    Comment: NPS commented that if EPA uses incremental cost to 
override an average cost-effectiveness value (which was at a level 
found to be reasonable in the Four Corners BART proposal), it must show 
how the incremental costs of switching to lower sulfur fuels at the 
Verso Androscoggin mill are higher than other incremental costs that 
have been accepted.
    Response: The Regional Haze Rule grants States the authority to 
make the initial determination of what constitutes BART. EPA reviews 
that determination to ensure the appropriate factors were considered 
and that the determination is reasonable. The Four Corners BART 
proposal cited by NPS was an EPA proposal for a federal implementation 
plan (FIP), where EPA has the role of initially determining BART, and 
is therefore not comparable to EPA's role in approving Maine's SIP. For 
the Verso Androscoggin Power Boilers, EPA did not rely on the 
incremental cost in making its determination. Rather, EPA evaluated 
Maine's determination that with minimal visibility improvement beyond 
what would be achieved with 0.7% sulfur <greek-i>6 fuel oil, the 
conversion to <greek-i>2 fuel oil or natural gas was not justified. In 
addition, as noted above, the Power Boilers at Verso Androscoggin will 
be subject to a 0.5% sulfur limit no later than January 1, 2018, as 
part of Maine's long term strategy. EPA finds Maine's determination 
that 0.7% sulfur fuel oil represents BART for Verso Androscoggin to be 
reasonable.
    Comment: NPS commented that the average cost effectiveness of 
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for the Verso Androscoggin WFI is 
about $4,200/ton, which is much lower than EPA determined to be 
acceptable at Four Corners, and is lower than the benchmark $/ton 
values used by New York, Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin. NPS commented 
that Maine DEP/US EPA are essentially relying upon the cost of controls 
versus the resulting visibility improvement in reaching their 
conclusion. NPS claimed to have shown that the cost/dv for SCR on the 
Verso Androscoggin Waste Fuel Incinerator (WFI) falls well below the 
nationwide average, is reasonable, and should constitute BART for the 
Verso Androscoggin WFI.
    Response: The limited usefulness of the thresholds for Colorado, 
Oregon, and Wisconsin is discussed above. EPA has not yet proposed 
action on the New York submittal. Verso Androscoggin is a pulp and 
paper facility. The BART Guidelines do not include a presumptive level 
of control for this type of facility and Maine is not required to 
follow the BART Guidelines for setting BART for this unit. Four Corners 
is a 2,040 MW coal-fired EGU. The presumptive level of control for this 
type of facility is outlined in the BART Guidelines. The BART 
Guidelines do not include a presumptive level of control for pulp and 
paper facilities like Verso Androscoggin. The greatest visibility 
impact at any Class I Area due to NO<INF>X</INF> from Four Corners is 
5.95 dv,\7\ whereas, the highest visibility impact from the WFI at 
Verso Androscoggin is 0.4 dv. The highest visibility impact from the 
WFI at Verso Androscoggin is less than the threshold for applying BART 
to BART-eligible sources established by many States, including 
Colorado, Oregon, and Wisconsin which use a 0.5 dv threshold. EPA 
estimates that the cost of installation of SCR for Units 1 through 5 at 
Four Corners ranges from $2,515/ton-$3,163/ton.\8\ NPS estimated a cost 
of control for the Four Corners units on the order of $1,326/ton-
$1,882/ton NO<INF>X</INF> removed, with an expected visibility 
improvement of 2.43 dv at the highest impacted Class I Area.\9\ The 
determination of BART for Four Corners is not directly comparable to 
EPA's approval of Maine's determinations because of the much greater 
expected visibility improvement and, as noted above, the fact that the 
Four Corners proposal is a FIP. EPA finds that Maine reasonably 
determined that for an expected visibility improvement of 0.4 dv (SCR) 
or 0.1 dv (SNCR), the installation of SCR at a cost of $4,200/ton or 
SNCR at a cost of $4,950/ton on the 48 MW WFI at Verso Androscoggin is 
cost prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 75 FR 64230, October 19, 2010--EPA's Proposed Source 
Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available 
Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPS commented that based on recalculated visibility 
benefits at several of the nearest Class I Areas on the highest 
impacting visibility days, NPS determined that lower sulfur (0.5% & 
0.3%) fuels at Wyman Station Units <greek-i>3 and <greek-i>4 would 
improve cumulative visibility by a total of 2.0-3.4 dv. This results in 
a cumulative cost-effectiveness value of $0.8-$2.1 million/dv, which 
NPS claimed is relatively inexpensive compared to the average $18 
million/dv that they are seeing accepted by States and sources that are 
proposing reductions under BART. NPS claimed that because neither Maine 
DEP nor EPA had presented any benchmark

[[Page 24388]]

against which to compare their cost/dv estimates, EPA must agree that 
BART for Wyman boilers <greek-i>3 and <greek-i>4 is the use of 0.3% 
sulfur residual oil. In addition, NPS claimed that EPA should require 
the use of 0.3% sulfur fuel oil to meet the 90% reduction in the MANE-
VU ``Ask''.
    Response: The Maine BART limit for Wyman Station requires the 
reduction from 2.0% sulfur in fuel oil in boiler <greek-i>3 to the use 
of 0.7% sulfur in fuel oil and the continued use of 0.7% sulfur in fuel 
in boiler <greek-i>4 by January 1, 2013. In addition, as part of 
Maine's long term strategy, both boilers, along with the two other 
boilers on site, will be required to meet a further reduction to 0.5% 
sulfur limit by January 1, 2018, pursuant to 38 MRSA Sec.  603-A, sub-
Sec.  2(A), which will become federally enforceable under today's final 
action. This reduced sulfur limit will result in at least the 
additional 2.0 dv cumulative visibility improvement indicated in the 
NPS comments.
    While it is helpful additional information in some cases, the BART 
Guidelines do not require the use of cumulative visibility impact when 
addressing the visibility factor. NPS calculated that the reduction 
from 0.5% sulfur to 0.3% sulfur fuel oil would only result in 0.37 dv 
visibility improvement at the highest impacted area from boiler 
<greek-i>3 and 0.41 dv visibility improvement from boiler <greek-i>4, 
incurring an annual fuel cost increase of at least $886,844 and 
$4,103,863, respectively.\10\ However, NPS's calculations improperly 
compare the implementation cost based on lower utilization (most recent 
two years) with visibility benefits calculated using a higher 
utilization, suggesting that the true cost effectiveness values at 
lower utilization values may be higher than those calculated by NPS. 
Maine reasonably determined that 0.7% sulfur is BART for Wyman Station 
Units <greek-i>3 and <greek-i>4.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Appendix W to the NPS comment.
    \11\ NPS also claimed that analysis of Wyman must be conducted 
on the same basis as the analysis conducted at Verso Androscoggin. 
However, as discussed more fully below, States have discretion in 
determining the baseline period so long as it represents a 
reasonable determination of anticipated emissions from the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPS recommends that emission controls for two Maine 
sources, Dragon Cement, a Portland cement manufacturing facility, and 
SD Warren Company (SAPPI), an integrated pulp and paper mill, be 
evaluated under the reasonable progress provisions of the Regional Haze 
Rule. Initial BART modeling for these two sources demonstrated that 
they cause or contribute to visibility impairment at Acadia National 
Park. These two sources were subsequently found not to be subject to 
BART. NPS contends that, consistent with EPA Region 6's partial 
disapproval of Arkansas' Regional Haze SIP (Docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-
2008-0727), these Maine sources must be considered in Maine's 
reasonable progress analysis.
    Response: Under EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress 
Goals under the Regional Haze Program (``Reasonable Progress 
Guidance''), States may identify key pollutants and source categories 
for the first planning period.\12\ MANE-VU and Maine determined that 
the key pollutant which contributes to visibility impairment in the 
Maine Class I Areas is SO<INF>2</INF>. Therefore, in accordance with 
EPA's guidance,\13\ Maine and MANE-VU focused on SO<INF>2</INF> for the 
first planning period. As a result of the four factor analysis for 
reasonable progress, MANE-VU and Maine agreed to pursue the following 
emission reductions strategies to ensure reasonable progress for the 
first planning period: Timely implementation of BART; 90% reduction in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the 167 highest visibility impacting 
electrical generating units; a reduction in the sulfur in fuel content 
of distillate and residual oil; and continued evaluation of other 
emission reduction strategies. These reduction strategies (the MANE-VU 
Ask) represent individual reasonable progress goals, to be expressed in 
deciviews, which MANE-VU States committed to achieving (i.e., each 
State modeled what reductions would be achieved with these strategies 
and then converted those reductions into visibility improvement to set 
their reasonable progress goals). Each State is responsible for 
crafting a long term strategy that is intended to meet these reasonable 
progress goals. The SAPPI Power Boiler <greek-i>1 is subject to control 
under Maine's long term strategy under the State's low sulfur fuel oil 
legislation, 38 MRSA Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  2(A). This law limits the 
SAPPI Power Boiler <greek-i>1 to burning 0.5% sulfur fuel oil no later 
than January 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 
Regional Haze Program, p. 3-1 (2007), www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/reasonable_progress_guid071307.pdf.
    \13\ ``In deciding what amount of emission reductions is 
appropriate in setting the RPG, you (the State) should take into 
account that the long-term goal of no manmade impairment encompasses 
several planning periods. It is reasonable for you to defer 
reductions to later planning periods in order to maintain a 
consistent glidepath toward the long-term goal.'', Id. p. 1-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's partial disapproval of the Arkansas SIP was due to a lack of 
four factor analyses for reasonable progress. However, a full four 
factor analysis was undertaken at a regional level as part of Maine's 
role in MANE-VU; this resulted in the MANE-VU Ask discussed above. See 
76 FR 73956. The approval of Maine's SIP is therefore not inconsistent 
with the partial disapproval of Arkansas' SIP. Consistent with the 
Regional Haze Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, Maine was 
not required to evaluate additional controls for Dragon Products and 
SAPPI during this first planning period in setting its reasonable 
progress goals.
    Comment: NPS commented that while Power Boiler <greek-i>1 at SAPPI 
is not BART-eligible, MANE-VU modeling across the four Class I Areas 
modeled in and near Maine shows that Power Boiler <greek-i>1 has a 
cumulative impact of 1.8 dv, with 1.4 dv attributable to sulfates. The 
greatest impact (0.8 dv) occurs at Acadia National Park. With respect 
to SAPPI Power Boiler <greek-i>1, NPS suggested that EPA should 
evaluate additional emission reductions as required by the reasonable 
progress provisions of the Regional Haze Rule.
    Response: Under Maine's long term strategy, Power Boiler <greek-i>1 
at SAPPI will be required to reduce the current sulfur content of the 
residual oil from 2.0% to 0.5% by January 1, 2018, pursuant to 38 MRSA 
Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  2(A) which will become federally enforceable in 
today's action. When developing the emission projection for modeling 
future visibility conditions resulting from the various control 
strategies, Maine had originally projected that BART control on Power 
Boiler <greek-i>1 would result in an emission reduction of 1,442 tons 
per year. Maine clarified that the expected reductions from the 
application of BART are still being met via operation changes. This 
projection is separate from the additional reductions which will be 
achieved by the application of the low sulfur fuel oil requirements of 
Maine's long term strategy. As noted above, Maine's decision to not 
include controls in addition to the MANE-VU Ask on the SAPPI Power 
Boiler <greek-i>1 during this first planning period is consistent with 
the Regional Haze Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance.
    Comment: NPS commented that while they agree that Dragon (kiln) is 
a reconstructed source, they believe that the reasonable progress 
provisions of the Regional Haze Rule require that Dragon reduce 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions by 45% as expeditiously as possible.
    Response: As noted above, Maine conducted a full four factor 
analysis to set its reasonable progress goals, resulting in the MANE-VU 
Ask. The long term strategy provision establishes enforceable limits 
that the State will

[[Page 24389]]

undertake to meet the reasonable progress goals. We are interpreting 
NPS's comment as requesting that EPA require Maine to evaluate 
additional reductions from Dragon Products as part of its long term 
strategy.
    Dragon Products currently operates selective non-catalytic 
reduction to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from the kiln. The 
estimated efficiency of the current system is 18%-22% NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission reductions. EPA agrees that the kiln is a candidate for future 
emission reductions as part of Maine's long term strategy during 
subsequent planning periods. However, consistent with the Regional Haze 
Rule and EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance, during this first planning 
period Maine is reducing the visibility impacts from SO<INF>2</INF>, 
which is the greatest visibility impacting pollutant at its Class I 
Areas. The major pollutant of concern from Dragon Products is 
NO<INF>X</INF>. In subsequent planning periods, Maine will once again 
determine the pollutant(s) with the greatest impact on visibility and 
implement appropriate emission reduction measures as part of Maine's 
long term strategy for future planning periods. Maine was not required 
to include emissions reductions from Dragon Products during this first 
planning period.
    Comment: NPCA commented that the Dragon Products kiln was not 
considered subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 
the time of its modifications. NPCA claims that Dragon Products was 
appropriately classified as a BART-eligible source and should be 
subject to the BART determination reached by Maine in its earlier 
regional haze submittal.
    Response: As noted in the proposal, in a letter dated September 14, 
2011, Maine DEP informed EPA that it had determined that Dragon 
Products was a reconstructed source and not obliged to meet BART.\14\ 
EPA's BART Guidelines state that ``any emission unit for which 
reconstruction `commenced' after August 7, 1977, is not BART-
eligible.'' See 70 FR 39104, 39160 (July 6, 2005). However, as noted 
above, the BART Guidelines are only mandatory for 750 MW power plants. 
Therefore, Maine has discretion to follow the BART Guidelines 
interpretation of BART-eligible or to choose a different, reasonable 
interpretation. Maine's decision that, as a source that was 
reconstructed after August 7, 1977, Dragon Products is not BART-
eligible is reasonable and not inconsistent with the Regional Haze Rule 
or the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Maine DEP's letter refers both the concepts of BART 
``eligibility'' and being ``subject to BART,'' which are slightly 
different concepts under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). The letter focuses 
primarily on BART eligibility, and, as explained in this response, 
Maine had discretion to determine that Dragon Products is not BART-
eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That Dragon Products may not have been subject to the NSPS at the 
time of reconstruction is irrelevant for this purpose. Dragon Products 
was undisputedly subject to the more stringent Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) standard, and therefore was exempt from the 
substantive requirements of the NSPS.\15\ This does not affect the 
reasonableness of Maine's determination that Dragon Products is not 
BART-eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``If an affected facility subject to this subpart has a 
different emission limit or requirement for the same pollutant under 
another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or 
operator of the affected facility must comply with the most 
stringent emission limit or requirement and is exempt from the less 
stringent requirement.'' 40 CFR 63.1356(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: NPCA commented that Maine's determinations must be judged 
as to their cost effectiveness in the context of other determinations; 
they cannot be deemed ``not cost effective'' without such comparison. 
NPCA states that the proposed determinations do not include any 
comparison to a State threshold, cost effectiveness determination from 
other States, or other comparative metric to justify rejection of 
reasonable costs. NPCA also notes that it is precisely because of the 
comparative nature of a cost effectiveness determination that the 
values must be calculated by the same method, as well as calibrated to 
the same period (present day value).
    Response: BART determinations are developed based on the five 
factor analysis, of which cost effectiveness is only one factor. For 
sources other than 750 MW power plants, States retain the discretion to 
adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines. See earlier response 
on cost thresholds.
    Comment: NPCA commented that in several of the BART determinations, 
cost effectiveness determinations relied heavily on significantly lower 
usage (~20%) of the source in question (e.g., Verso Androscoggin Power 
Boilers, FPL Wyman), claiming that this results in much higher cost 
effectiveness values than otherwise would have occurred. NPCA commented 
that if these capacities are relied upon in BART or reasonable progress 
determinations, they must be made enforceable, with permit conditions 
limiting the hours of operation or automatically requiring additional 
controls in the event that specific annual usage is exceeded.
    Response: According to the BART Guidelines, when calculating the 
average cost of control, ``The baseline emission rate should represent 
a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source. 
In general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate 
the anticipated annual emissions from a baseline period. In the absence 
of enforceable emission limitations, you calculate baseline emissions 
based upon continuation of past practices.'' On the other hand, the 
BART Guidelines require enforceable limitations if the utilization or 
other parameters used to determine future emissions differ from past 
practice. BART Guidelines Section D. Step 4.d. See 70 FR 39156, 39167. 
The reduced utilization of Wyman Station is based on past practice and 
is consistent with the Regional Haze Rule.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As EPA noted in our proposal, for Verso Androscoggin we are 
not relying on the reduced utilization rate as part of our analysis 
of Maine's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: EPA received a comment letter signed by 911 members of 
Credo Action stating ``As a Maine resident, I urge you to greatly 
reduce haze pollution at Maine's national parks. Unfortunately, the 
plan EPA is currently considering doesn't go far enough. To protect the 
health of children, communities and our parks, Maine and EPA must do 
more to hold polluters in the state accountable and require adequate 
emission reductions.'' In addition to the comment letter, 122 signators 
provided additional comments. Twenty-eight people requested that we 
protect Maine's air quality, and an additional thirty-eight 
specifically mentioned Acadia National Park. Twenty-seven people cited 
health concerns in regards to the current air quality, twenty-three 
people expressed a need to reduce air pollution, and twenty-one people 
stated that we need stronger rules to reduce air pollution.
    Response: EPA agrees that it is important to reduce the visibility 
and health impacts from man-made pollution at the Federal Class I 
Areas, such as Acadia National Park. EPA's approval of Maine's SIP will 
result in significant reductions in emissions and improvement in 
visibility. This represents only the first step towards meeting the 
national goal of natural conditions in federal Class I Areas.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maine's December 9, 2010 SIP revision as meeting 
the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA is 
also approving the following license conditions and incorporating them 
into the SIP: Conditions (16) A, B, G, and H of license amendment A-
406-77-3-M

[[Page 24390]]

for Katahdin Paper Company issued on July 8, 2009; license amendment A-
214-77-9-M for Rumford Paper Company issued on January 8, 2010; license 
amendment A-22-77-5-M for Verso Bucksport, LLC issued November 2, 2010; 
license amendment A-214-77-2-M for Woodland Pulp, LLC (formerly Domtar) 
issued November 2, 2010; license amendment A-388-77-2-M for FPL Energy 
Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV, LLC issued November 2, 2010; license amendment 
A-19-77-5-M for S. D. Warren Company issued November 2, 2010; license 
amendment A-203-77-11-M for Verso Androscoggin LLC issued November 2, 
2010; and license amendment A-180-77-1-A for Red Shield Environmental 
LLC issued November 29, 2007.
    In addition, EPA is approving Maine's low sulfur fuel oil 
legislation, 38 MRSA Sec.  603-A, sub-Sec.  2(A), and incorporating 
this legislation into the Maine SIP. Furthermore, EPA is approving the 
following Maine state regulation and incorporating it into the SIP: 
Maine Chapter 150, Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 14, 2012.
    Signed:
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. Section 52.1020 is amended by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``Chapter 150'' in numerical order to the table 
in paragraph (c);
0
b. Adding an entry for ``38 MRSA Sec.  603-A sub Sec.  2(A)'' at the 
end of the table in paragraph (c);
0
c. Adding eight entries at the end of the table in paragraph (d); and
0
d. Adding an entry at the end of the table in paragraph (e).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.1020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA-approved regulations.

                                         EPA-Approved Maine Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State effective   EPA approval date
         State citation              Title/subject           date          and citation \1\      Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Chapter 150.....................  Control of                  4/11/2010  4/24/2012 [Insert    ..................
                                   Emissions from                         Federal Register
                                   Outdoor Wood                           page number where
                                   Boilers.                               the document
                                                                          begins].

[[Page 24391]]

 
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
38 MRSA Sec.   603-A sub Sec.     ``An Act To Improve         9/12/2009  4/24/2012 [Insert    Only approving
 2(A).                             Maine's Air                            Federal Register     Sec. 1. 38 MRSA
                                   Quality and Reduce                     page number where    Sec.   603-A, sub-
                                   Regional Haze at                       the document         Sec.   2, (2)
                                   Acadia National                        begins].             Prohibitions.
                                   Park and Other
                                   Federally
                                   Designated Class I
                                   Areas''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (d) EPA-approved State Source specific requirements.

                                 EPA-Approved Maine Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State effective    EPA approval date
          Name of source              Permit No.           date          and citation \2\        Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Katahdin Paper Company...........      A-406-77-3-M          7/8/2009  4/24/2012 [Insert     Approving license
                                                                        Federal Register      conditions (16) A,
                                                                        page number where     B, G, and H.
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
Rumford Paper Company............      A-214-77-9-M          1/8/2010  4/24/2012 [Insert     ...................
                                                                        Federal Register
                                                                        page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
Verso Bucksport, LLC.............       A-22-77-5-M         11/2/2010  4/24/2012 [Insert     ...................
                                                                        Federal Register
                                                                        page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
Woodland Pulp, LLC...............      A-214-77-2-M         11/2/2010  4/24/2012 [Insert     ...................
                                                                        Federal Register
                                                                        page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
FPL Energy Wyman, LLC & Wyman IV,      A-388-77-2-M         11/2/2010  4/24/2012 [Insert     ...................
 LLC.                                                                   Federal Register
                                                                        page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
S. D. Warren Company.............       A-19-77-5-M         11/2/2010  4/24/2012 [Insert     ...................
                                                                        Federal Register
                                                                        page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
Verso Androscoggin, LLC..........     A-203-77-11-M         11/2/2010  4/24/2012 [Insert     ...................
                                                                        Federal Register
                                                                        page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
Red Shield Environmental, LLC....      A-180-77-1-A        11/29/2007  4/24/2012 [Insert     ...................
                                                                        Federal Register
                                                                        page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

    (e) Non-regulatory.

                                              Maine Non-Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable        State submittal
  Name of non  regulatory SIP       geographic or      date/effective    EPA approved date      Explanations
           provision             nonattainment area         date         and  citation \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Maine Regional Haze SIP and its  Statewide.........  12/9/2010;          4/24/2012 [Insert  ....................
 supplements.                                         supplements         Federal Register
                                                      submitted 9/14/     page number
                                                      2011 11/9/2011.     where the
                                                                          document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.


[[Page 24392]]

[FR Doc. 2012-9719 Filed 4-23-12; 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>