Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3975 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1606 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0080; FRL–9622–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Indiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

addressing regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Indiana 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

January 14, 2011, and supplemented it 

on March 10, 2011. The Indiana regional 

haze plan addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

for states to remedy any existing and 

prevent future anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

proposing a limited approval of these 

SIP revisions to implement the regional 

haze requirements for Indiana on the 

basis that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Indiana SIP. In a separate 

action, EPA has previously proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Indiana 

regional haze SIP because of the 

deficiencies in Indiana’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). Consequently, we are not 

proposing to take action in this notice 

to address the state’s reliance on CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0080, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0080. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

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

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

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

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

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

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Charles 

Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6031 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategy Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

RHR 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of RPGs 

D. BART 

E. 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 the relationship of the CAIR and 

the transport rule to the regional haze 

requirements? 

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR 

B. Remand of the CAIR 

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially 

Affected by the CAIR Remand and 

Promulgation of Transport Rule 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Indiana’s 

regional haze plan? 

A. Rationale and Scope of Proposed 

Limited Approval 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities that are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

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

nitrates, organic particles, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust) and its 

precursors—sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compound (VOCs). Fine particle 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form fine particulate matter. Aerosol 

PM2.5 impairs visibility by scattering 

and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity and 

distance one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range, the distance at 

which an object is barely discernable, in 

many Class I areas 1 in the western 

United States is 100–150 kilometers. 

That is about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

the eastern and Midwestern Class I areas 

of the United States, the average visual 

range is generally less than 30 

kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

RHR 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution.’’ On December 

2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to 

address visibility impairment in Class I 

areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to 

a single source or small group of sources 

known as, ‘‘reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment’’ (RAVI). See 45 

FR 80084. These regulations, codified at 

40 CFR part 50, subpart P, represented 

the first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze, the RHR, on July 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3977 

2Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

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

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999.) 

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

amends 40 CFR part 50, subpart P, 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The subpart P requirements for 

regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 

and 51.309, are included in EPA’s 

visibility protection regulations at 40 

CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main 

elements of the regional haze 

requirements are summarized in section 

III. The requirement to submit a regional 

haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and the Virgin 

Islands.2

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the 

air quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, 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 state. 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes to address visibility impairment 

from a regional perspective because the 

pollutants that lead to regional haze can 

originate from sources located across 

broad geographic areas. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues in their geographical area. 

The five RPOs are the Mid-Atlantic and 

Northeastern Visibility Union (MANE– 

VU) for the Northeastern states, the 

Visibility Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), 

the Midwest Regional Planning 

Organization (MRPO), the Central 

Regional Air Planning Association 

(CENRAP), and Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP). The RPOs first 

evaluated technical information to 

better understand how their states and 

tribes impact Class I areas across the 

country and then pursued the 

development of regional strategies to 

reduce PM2.5 emissions and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The State of Indiana participated in 

the planning efforts of the MRPO. The 

MRPO 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 inside the borders of the 

five States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin. Members of 

MRPO include the five states, the 

Federal Land Managers (U.S. National 

Park Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service, and U.S. Forest Service), and 

EPA. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress toward 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 (LTS) 

for making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. 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 best available 

retrofit technology (BART) for the 

purpose of 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 3

(dv) as the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility impairment. 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. 

The deciview is used in expressing 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs), 

defining baseline, current, and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. The regional haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution. The national goal is a 

return to natural conditions such that 

anthropogenic sources of air pollution 

would no longer impair visibility in 

Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP is submitted and at 

the progress review every five years, 

midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR 

requires states with Class I areas (Class 

I states) to determine the degree of 

impairment in deciview for the average 

of the 20 percent least impaired (best) 

and 20 percent most impaired (worst) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of its Class I areas. Each 

state must also develop an estimate of 

natural visibility conditions for the 

purpose of comparing progress toward 

the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural 

concentrations of pollutants that cause 

visibility impairment and then 

calculating total light extinction based 

on those estimates. EPA has provided 

guidance to states regarding how to 

calculate baseline, natural, and current 

visibility conditions in documents 

titled, EPA’s Guidance for Estimating 

Natural Visibility conditions under the 

Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 

(EPA–454/B–03–005 located at http:// 

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

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 

September 2003 located at http:// 

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

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIP, the 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ are the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

best days and 20 percent worst days for 

each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

Using monitoring data for 2000 through 

2004, states are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area, based on the 

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

baseline visibility conditions to natural 

visibility conditions indicates the 

amount of improvement necessary to 

attain natural visibility, while 

comparisons of future conditions 

against baseline conditions will indicate 

the amount of progress made. In general, 

the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of 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 distinct RPGs, 

one for the best days and one for the 

worst days for every Class I area for each 

approximately 10-year implementation 

period. The RHR does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, 

states must provide for an improvement 

in visibility for the worst days over the 

approximately 10-year period of the SIP 

and ensure no degradation in visibility 

for the best days. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. The state must demonstrate in 

its SIP how these factors are considered 

when selecting the RPGs for the best 

and worst days for each applicable Class 

I area. States have considerable 

flexibility in how they take these factors 

into consideration, as noted in EPA’s 

Guidance for Setting Reasonable 

Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’), July 1, 2007, memorandum 

from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. 

4–2, 5–1). In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘uniform rate of 

progress’’ or ‘‘glide path’’) and the 

emissions reduction needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. In setting RPGs each 

state with a Class I areas (Class I state) 

must also consult with potentially 

contributing states that may affect 

visibility impairment at the Class I 

areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. BART 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain older large stationary 

sources to address visibility impacts 

from these sources. Specifically, CAA 

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

revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 4 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

BART as determined by the state. Under 

the RHR, the state can require sourcespecific BART controls, but it also has 

the flexibility to adopt an alternative 

such as an emissions trading program or 

alternate control providing greater 

progress towards improving visibility 

than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (BART 

Guidelines) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. (70 FR 39104) A state 

must use the approach in the BART 

Guidelines in making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating unit (EGUs) with 

total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts. States are encouraged, 

but not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC and NH3 emissions 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. The exemption threshold 

set by the state should not be higher 

than 0.50 dv. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual source’s 

impact. 

The state must identify potential 

BART sources in its SIP, described as 

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

and document its BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

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

to consider the following factors: (1) The 

costs of compliance; (2) the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. The BART 

controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

state’s regional haze SIP. See CAA 

section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 

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

required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. 

The RHR also allows states to 

implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART if desired so long as the 

alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

progress toward the national visibility 

goal than implementing BART controls. 

EPA made such a demonstration for 

CAIR under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program. 70 

FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s 

regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR 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 (FIP) in 40 CFR 

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

maintain BART for emissions of SO2

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3979 

CAIR is not applicable to emissions of 

PM, states were still required to conduct 

a BART analysis for PM emissions from 

EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. 

CAIR was later found to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and the rule was remanded to 

EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left 

CAIR in place until the Agency replaced 

it. EPA replaced CAIR with the 

Transport Rule in August 2011. 

On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed 

to find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would be obtained by 

implementing BART for SO2 and NOX

for BART-subject EGUs in the area 

subject to the Transport Rule. 76 FR 

82219. Based on that proposed finding, 

EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 

allow states, including Indiana, to meet 

the requirements of an alternative 

program in lieu of BART by 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule. The 

Transport Rule is not applicable to 

emissions of PM, so states would still be 

required to conduct a BART analysis for 

PM emissions from EGUs subject to 

BART for that pollutant. EPA has not 

taken final action on that rule. 

E. 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 

an LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the RPGs for all 

Class I areas within or affected by 

emissions from the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

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

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to address interstate visibility 

issues sufficiently. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS. The 

seven factors are: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

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 in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). The state must revise its plan to 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI 

and regional haze on or before this date. 

It must also submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

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

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the 

requirement for a monitoring strategy 

for measuring, characterizing, and 

reporting of regional haze visibility 

impairment that is representative of all 

mandatory Class I areas within the state. 

The strategy must be coordinated with 

the monitoring strategy required in 40 

CFR 51.305. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network, 

meaning that the state reviews and uses 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The monitoring strategy is due with the 

first regional haze SIP and it must be 

reviewed every five years. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible in 

electronic format; 

• A statewide inventory of emissions 

of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The inventory must include emissions 

for a baseline year, emissions for the 

most recent year with available data, 

and future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility. 

The 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 40 CFR 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 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers(FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for 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 Indiana’s 

regional haze plan? 

Indiana submitted its regional haze 

plan on January 14, 2011, and 

supplemented it on March 10, 2011. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

States are required to address regional 

haze affecting Class I areas within a 

state and in Class I areas outside the 

state that may be affected by that state’s 

emissions. Indiana does not have any 

Class I areas within its borders, but has 

been identified as influencing the 

visibility impairment of Class I areas in 

other nearby states. Indiana is 

responsible for developing a regional 

haze SIP that addresses its visibility 

impairment on Class I areas it may affect 

describing its LTS, its role in the 

consultation processes, and how the SIP 

meets other elements in EPA’s RHR. 

Since Indiana does not have any Class 

I areas within its borders, and has no 

sources that have been identified as 

causes of RAVI, however, Indiana is not 

required to address the following 

Regional Haze SIP elements: (1) 

Calculation of baseline and natural 

visibility conditions; (2) establishment 

of reasonable progress goals; (3) 

monitoring requirements, and (4) RAVI 

requirements. 

Indiana reviewed technical analyses 

conducted by MRPO and other RPOs to 

determine what Class I areas are affected 

by Indiana’s emissions. MPRO 

conducted both a back trajectory 

analysis and modeling to determine the 

affects of its states’ emissions. Indiana 

also used assessments by MANE–VU, 

VISTAS, and a joint state assessment by 

Arkansas and Missouri, each of which 

identified states having non-de minimus 

impacts on specified Class I areas. The 

following are Class I areas identified as 

being affected by Indiana sources: 

Southeastern U.S. (VISTAS)—Sipsey 

Wilderness Area, Alabama; Mammoth 

Cave National Park, Kentucky; Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park, 

North Carolina and Tennessee; James 

River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia 

(VA); Shenandoah National Park, VA; 

and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek 

Wilderness Areas, West Virginia 

(WVA) 

Eastern U.S. (MANE–VU)—Acadia 

National Park, Maine; Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area, Maine; Great Gulf 

Wilderness Area, New Hampshire; 

Brigantine Wilderness Area, New 

Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness 

Area, Vermont 

North Central U.S. (MRPO and 

CENRAP)—Isle Royale National Park, 

Michigan (MI); Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge, MI; Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness Area, 

Minnesota (MN); and Voyageurs 

National Park, MN 

South Central U.S. (CENRAP)— 

Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, 

Missouri (MO); Mingo Wilderness 

Area, MO; Caney Creek Wilderness 

Area, Arizona (AR); and Upper 

Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR 

Appendix 1 of Indiana’s Regional 

Haze SIP contains a list of these Class 

I areas for all the Midwest states, and 

the analyses performed to assess the 

impact from Indiana sources compiled 

by the MRPO. Class I areas outside the 

areas listed above were not analyzed 

further, as there were no significant 

impacts from Indiana sources shown. 

Further, no impacts were noted in the 

WRAP states. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Current, 

and Natural Conditions 

The RHR requires Class I states to 

estimate the baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions of those 

Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). 

There are no Class I areas within the 

State of Indiana. Therefore, this element 

does not apply to Indiana. 

C. RPGs 

Class I states must set RPGs that 

achieve reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions. 

Indiana does not have any Class I areas, 

so it does not need to set any RPGs. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1). The states with Class 

I areas took the lead in establishing 

RPGs. Indiana consulted with Class I 

states by participating in the discussions 

(meetings and conference calls) with 

MRPO and RPOs outside the Midwest to 

ensure it achieves its share of emission 

reductions as those Class I states 

determine RPGs. In Appendix 9c, of 

Indiana’s Regional Haze SIP, the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO) document ‘‘Reasonable 

Progress for Class I Areas in the 

Northern Midwest—Factor Analysis’’ 

(July 18, 2007), addresses factor analysis 

to establish RPG toward achieving 

natural visibility conditions in 

mandatory Class I areas. In addition, 

Appendix 9b of LADCO’S Technical 

Support Document ‘‘Regional Air 

Quality Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze: Final Technical Support 

Document,’’ provides additional 

information related to Indiana’s 

emissions and visibility contributions 

and a detailed discussion of the 

measures needed to achieve Indiana’s 

share of emission reductions. Indiana 

has satisfied this requirement. 

D. BART 

Indiana began the BART rulemaking 

process in August 2006. Following its 

rulemaking, which included the notices 

of hearings and comments, Indiana 

adopted 326 Indiana Administrative 

Code (IAC), Article 26, Rule 1, Best 

Available Retrofit Technology, on 

October 3, 2007; it became effective 

February 22, 2008. 

Indiana conducted a BART analysis 

using the criteria in the BART 

Guidance. Using available source 

emissions and construction date 

information, Indiana developed a list of 

32 BART-eligible sources within the 

BART source categories by county. 

Indiana then applied the results of the 

screening modeling conducted by the 

MRPO to determine which BARTeligible sources have significant impacts 

on any Class I area and thus warrant 

being subject to BART requirements. In 

accordance with EPA’s recommendation 

Indiana defined ‘‘significant impact’’ as 

an impact of at least 0.5 deciviews. By 

this means, Indiana identified the 

following non-EGUs as subject to BART: 

Alcoa Inc., ESSROC Cement 

Corporation, SABIC Innovative Plastics 

(formerly GE Plastics), and Mittal Steel 

USA Inc.-Burns Harbor. Indiana did not 

consider EGUs in its analysis as it 

decided to rely on these sources’ 

participation in the CAIR to address the 

BART requirements for SO2 and NOX

emissions from these sources, and a 

modeling analysis demonstrated that 

particulate matter impacts from EGUs at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3981 

Class I areas were insignificant and did 

not warrant further control. 

Indiana further analyzed the four nonEGU facilities to determine which 

sources are subject to BART. Additional 

more refined modeling analyses 

submitted for three of the four non-EGU 

sources (ESSROC Cement Corporation, 

SABIC Innovative Plastics, and Mittal 

Steel USA Inc.—Burns Harbor) showed 

that they did not contribute significantly 

to the visibility impairment at any Class 

I areas, so that these sources may be 

exempted from the BART requirement 

under the regional haze rule. Modeling 

of these facilities indicated that just one 

source, Alcoa of Warrick County, is 

subject to BART. 

Alcoa, Inc.—BART Determination and 

Modeling Analysis 

Indiana submitted a BART analysis, 

prepared by Alcoa, which analyzed 

BART and alternative BART control 

strategies. Before beginning the five 

factor case-by-case BART analysis, 

Alcoa performed a baseline visibility 

impact analysis for each of the years 

2001–2003 using the CALPUFF model 

with emission rates based on the 24- 

hour average actual emissions from the 

highest emitting day. The initial 

screening model projected the highest 

visibility impact at Mammoth Cave 

National Park (MCNP). Other Class I 

areas screened included Mingo 

Wilderness Area, Sipsey Wilderness 

Area, Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park, Joyce Kilmer—Slick Rock 

Wilderness Area, Cohutta Wilderness 

Area, and Shining Rock Wilderness 

Area. The impact at MCNP exceeded 0.5 

dv. Since the visibility impact was 

highest at MCNP, the BART analysis 

focused on the impact at MCNP. 

Alcoa identified 18 ingot furnaces, 

three boilers (Boilers #2, #3, and 4), and 

five aluminum refining furnaces 

(Potlines 2–6) as meeting BART 

eligibility criteria. Boilers #2 and #3 are 

classified as industrial boilers. Boiler #4 

is classified as an EGU, and, under 

Indiana’s plan, is addressed by CAIR for 

SO2 and NOX in conjunction with other 

EGUs in the state. Thus, the BART 

analysis for boiler #4 will only address 

PM emissions. 

After proposing determinations of 

BART for its BART-subject units, Alcoa 

proposed an alternative strategy which 

compensates for less stringent limits at 

selected BART-subject units by 

imposing more restrictive limits at a 

non-BART-subject unit at the facility. In 

most respects, Indiana’s SIP submittal 

reflects the BART determinations and 

the alternative strategy that Alcoa 

proposed. Tables 1 and 2 show 

summaries of the BART determinations 

and the alternative BART control 

strategy that Alcoa proposed. 

TABLE 1—ALCOA’S PROPOSED BART CONTROL STRATEGY

Emission unit BART Alternative BART 

Boiler 1 ................................. Not a BART-subject unit 

PM ........................................ .......................................................................................... Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP). 

SO2 ....................................... .......................................................................................... Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) with 91% emission 

reduction efficiency. 

NOX ...................................... .......................................................................................... Low NOX Burners (LNB) with staged over-fire air 

(OFA). 

Boilers 2 and 3: 

PM ................................. ESP ................................................................................. ESP. 

SO2 ............................... Wet FGD with 92% emission reduction efficiency .......... Wet FGD with 90% emission reduction efficiency. 

NOX .............................. LNB with staged OFA ..................................................... LNB with staged over-fire air OFA. 

Boiler 4–PM ......................... ESP ................................................................................. ESP. 

Potlines (2–6): 

—Fugitive emissions: 

PM ................................. No add-on control ........................................................... No add-on control. 

—Primary emissions: 

PM ................................. Gas treatment system followed by fabric filter ............... Gas treatment system followed by fabric filter. 

SO2 ............................... Limit anode grade coke to 3% sulfur .............................. Limit anode grade coke to 3.5% sulfur. 

NOX .............................. No add-on control ...........................................................

No add-on control ...........................................................

No add-on control 

No add-on control. 

TABLE 2—ALCOA’S PROPOSED BART EMISSION LIMITS

Emission unit Emission limit Compliance demonstration method 

Boiler 1 ................................. Not a Bart-eligible unit. 

PM (filterable) ....................... 0.03 lb/MMBtu, 24-hour daily average ............................ Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) at the 

scrubber outlet according to 40 CFR part 60, following Appendix B, PS–11. 

SO2 ....................................... 91% reduction, 24-hour daily average ............................ CEMS at the scrubber inlet and outlet according to 40 

CFR part 60, following Appendix B, PS–2. 

NOX ...................................... 0.38 lb/MMBtu, 24-hour daily average ............................ CEMS at the scrubber outlet following PS–2. 

Boilers 2 and 3: 

PM (filterable) ............... 0.03 lb/MMBtu, 24-hour daily average ............................ CEMS at the scrubber outlet according to 40 CFR part 

60, following Appendix B, PS–11. 

SO2 ............................... 90% reduction, 24-hour daily average ............................ CEMS at the scrubber inlet and outlet according to 40 

CFR part 60, following Appendix B, PS–2. 

NOX .............................. 0.38 lb/MMBtu, 24-hour daily average ............................ CEMS at the scrubber outlet following PS–2. 

Boiler 4: 

PM (filterable and sulfuric acid).0.1 lb/MMBtu ................................................................... 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 5. 

Potlines (2–6): 

PM (filterable) ............... 0.005 grains/scf, 24-hour daily average ......................... 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—ALCOA’S PROPOSED BART EMISSION LIMITS—Continued 

Emission unit Emission limit Compliance demonstration method 

SO2 ............................... The sulfur content in each monthly baked anode composite shall not exceed 2.919%, provided however 

that hourly SO2 emissions from the potlines shall not 

exceed 1,456 lbs/hr on a combined basis, and determined on a monthly basis.

ASTM D3177–02, modified by adding saturated bromine water before the pH adjustment. Alternatively, 

determination of sulfur content by x-ray fluorescence. 

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, Alcoa 

recommended that it be subject to an 

alternative set of control requirements 

in lieu of being required to implement 

BART at each BART-subject unit. This 

alternative would provide additional 

control of emissions from boiler #1 

beyond that required in the baseline 

years, sufficient to compensate for 

allowing more SO2 emissions from the 

potlines and from boilers #2 and #3. 

Thus, Indiana determined SO2 BART 

(utilizing wet limestone flue gas 

desulfurization) for Boilers #2 and #3 as 

92 percent reduction, but it adopted 

requirements to control SO2 emissions 

from these boilers by 90% as an 

alternative. According to the discussion 

in Chapter 8, and Appendix 5, of the 

State of Indiana Regional Haze SIP, 

Indiana determined that BART for the 

potlines consists of the use of anode 

grade coke containing 3 percent sulfur, 

which is higher than the current Indiana 

rule that limits sulfur in the coke to no 

more than 2 percent. The alternative 

strategy recommended by Alcoa allows 

the use of coke containing 3.5 percent 

sulfur. To compensate for these less 

stringent limits, Alcoa’s alternative 

strategy requires that the source control 

SO2 emissions from Boiler #1 by 91 

percent and control NOX emissions to 

meet limit of 0.38 pounds/Million 

British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu) for 

boilers #1, i.e., the same limit as applies 

to boilers #2 and #3 (utilizing low NOX

burners and over-fire air). For 

particulate emissions, Indiana 

determined that BART represents use of 

electrostatic precipitators with an 

emission limit equal to 0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

for boilers #2 and #3. Indiana 

determined that the particulate emission 

limit representing BART for boiler #4 is 

0.015 lbs/MMBtu, with an alternative 

limit for this boiler as 0.10 lbs/MMBtu. 

Indiana’s submittal nominally follows 

Alcoa’s recommendation. Nevertheless, 

Indiana’s submittal does not change the 

SO2 emission limits that apply to 

Alcoa’s potlines. Therefore, EPA views 

Indiana’s submittal as mandating a 

BART strategy for Alcoa that in fact 

includes status quo limits of potline SO2

emissions. 

In any case, EPA does not agree that 

an increase in sulfur content of coke 

used in the potlines at Alcoa’s Warrick 

County facility, as opposed to a decrease 

in the sulfur content and thus in the 

emissions from these units, represents 

BART at these units. Furthermore, 

neither the company nor the state has 

provided evidence that this relaxation of 

limits on SO2 emissions from these 

units does not interfere with attainment 

and maintenance of applicable SO2 air 

quality standards, in contravention of 

Clean Air Act section 110(l). On the 

other hand, Indiana’s submittal contains 

no rule revisions or permit provisions 

that would in fact implement any 

relaxation of limits on the SO2

emissions from these units. Therefore, 

notwithstanding the discussion 

suggesting that Indiana supports an 

increase in these limits, the actual plan 

reflects continuation of the existing 

limits without relaxation. That is, EPA 

considers Indiana’s regional haze plan 

to reflect the current SO2 emission 

limits for the potlines, not the relaxed 

limits discussed in Indiana’s submittal. 

For each potline #2–6 the S02 emission 

limit is 195.2 pounds/hour at the stack, 

and 21.7 pounds/hour for each roof 

monitor associated with the potline. 

Viewing Indiana’s plan in that 

manner, EPA is satisfied with Indiana’s 

alternative strategy for Alcoa. Modeling 

conducted by Indiana shows that the 

alternative achieves greater visibility 

improvement than BART, equal to 75 

percent more reduction in deciviews 

over the baseline. The alternative BART, 

though it achieves greater reductions in 

all pollutants (PM, SO2, and NOX); and 

most notably achieves significantly 

higher reductions in SO2 emissions, 

equal to approximately 21,600 tons 

more than BART. The resulting 

emission limits are adopted by Indiana 

into the Indiana’s regional haze SIP 

submittal, and will be included in the 

facilities’ Part 70 permit for each unit 

subject to BART. 

Under the CAA, BART is required for 

any BART-eligible source that emits any 

air pollutant which may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

impairment of visibility in any Class I 

area. Accordingly, for stationary sources 

meeting these criteria, states must 

address the BART requirement when 

they develop their Regional Haze SIPs. 

On November 3, 2010, the Indiana Air 

Pollution Control Board adopted as final 

Indiana BART Rule, 326 IAC 26–2, to 

establish BART emission limitations in 

order to comply with the RHR. Indiana’s 

Regional Haze SIP includes a copy of 

rule 326 IAC Article 26–2 in 

Appendix 7. 

E. LTS 

As described in III. E of this action, 

the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state for achieving its RPGs. The 

LTS must include enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the RPGs for all Class I areas affected by 

Indiana emissions. 

Indiana consulted with Class I states 

on the development of RPGs through its 

participation in MRPO. MRPO 

facilitated consultations with other 

Midwest states and with states in other 

regions through inter-RPO processes. By 

coordinating with the MRPO and other 

RPOs, Indiana has worked to ensure that 

its LTS provides sufficient emission 

reductions to mitigate impacts of 

sources from Indiana on affected Class 

I areas. Indiana believes that existing 

control programs will adequately 

address Indiana’s impact on Class I 

areas. Thus, continued implementation 

of the control programs will satisfy the 

long-term strategy requirements. 

MPRO considered existing onhighway mobile source, off-highway 

mobile source, area source, power plant, 

and other point source programs as the 

existing control programs in its analysis. 

Indiana included a technical support 

document (TSD) produced by MRPO in 

its submission that details the analysis. 

Overall, emissions from Indiana and the 

Midwest, as a whole, are reduced 

significantly over this time, illustrating 

that Indiana is making appropriate 

progress toward reducing emissions. 

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

identifies seven factors that each state 

must consider in developing its LTS. 

The state must consider: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) Measures to mitigate 

impact from construction activities; (3) 

Emissions limitations and schedules for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3983 

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. 

Indiana relied on MPRO’s modeling 

and analysis along with its emission 

information in developing a LTS. 

Indiana consulted with Class I states 

through its participation in MRPO. 

MRPO facilitated consultations with 

other Midwest states and with states in 

other regions through inter-RPO 

processes. Indiana considered the 

factors set out in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) 

in developing its LTS. Based on these 

factors and the MRPO’s technical 

analysis, in conjunction with RPGs that 

were set by the pertinent states in 

consultation with Indiana and other 

states, Indiana concludes that existing 

control programs adequately address 

Indiana’s impact on Class I areas and 

suffice to meet their RPGs by 2018 by 

implementing the control programs 

already in place. These existing control 

programs include Federal motor vehicle 

emission control program, reformulated 

gasoline, emission limits for area 

sources of VOCs, Title IV, the NOX SIP 

Call, new source review permitting 

program, Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards, and Federal nonroad standards for construction 

equipment and vehicles. Furthermore, 

Indiana has open burning rules and its 

Department of Natural Resources has 

the authority to ban outdoor burning if 

necessary. Indiana noted in its 

submission that the state has a smoke 

management plan that complements its 

open burning rules, under Indiana Code 

13–17–9 and rule 326 IAC Article 4–1. 

Significantly, Indiana’s LTS also relies 

on CAIR. In rulemaking published on 

December 30, 2011, at 76 FR 82219, EPA 

proposed to disapprove the BART plans 

and LTS’s for Indiana and several other 

states because CAIR cannot be 

considered to provide permanently 

enforceable emission reductions. 

As noted in EPA’s separate notice 

proposing revisions to the RHR (76 FR 

82219, December 30, 2011), a number of 

states, including Indiana, fully 

consistent with EPA’s regulations at the 

time, relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

and the requirement for a long-term 

strategy sufficient to achieve the stateadopted reasonable progress goals. In 

that notice, we proposed a limited 

disapproval of Indiana’s long-term 

strategy based on its reliance on CAIR. 

Comments on that proposed 

determination may be directed to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729. We are proposing to find that the 

remaining elements of Indiana’s longterm strategy meet the requirements of 

the RHR. 

F. Comments 

Indiana took comments on its 

proposed regional haze plan. It held a 

public hearing on January 11, 2011, 

which concluded the public comment 

period. As part of the consultation 

process, Indiana also received 

comments from the FLMs which were 

presented at Indiana’s public hearing. 

Indiana provided the comments it 

received and its responses with its plan. 

Indiana revised portions of its plan in 

response to comments received. EPA 

considers that Indiana has satisfied this 

requirement. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of revisions to the Indiana SIP 

submitted by IDEM on January 11, 2011, 

and March 10, 2011, addressing regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

The revisions seek to address CAA and 

regional haze rule requirements for 

states to remedy any existing 

anthropogenic and prevent future 

impairment of visibility at Class I areas. 

Indiana’s plan satisfies a number of 

elements of the regional haze 

requirements. Indiana’s plan identifies 

the Class I areas that the state’s 

emissions affect. Indiana demonstrates 

that the state has consulted with other 

states as appropriate in establishing 

reasonable progress goals and 

identifying the reductions need in 

Indiana to meet those goals. Indiana’s 

plan meets the requirement for BART 

for non-EGUs and for particulate matter 

emissions from EGUs. For these reasons, 

and for the SIP strengthening effect of 

Indiana’s plan, EPA is proposing limited 

approval of Indiana’s plan. 

In addition to the above actions, EPA 

is proposing to approve regulation 326 

IAC Article 26, Rule 2 into Indiana’s SIP 

which incorporates BART emission 

limitations in order for sources to 

comply with EPA’s Regional Haze Rule. 

It should be noted that rule 326 IAC 

Article 26–2 contains an erroneous 

citation, citing limits in 326 IAC 7–4– 

10(a)(4) rather than 326 IAC 7–4– 

10(a)(3). EPA nevertheless finds the rule 

approvable for several reasons: (1) The 

pertinent limits are already an approved 

part of Indiana’s SIP and are therefore 

already enforceable; (2) the State’s 

intent is clear; and (3) Indiana intends 

to correct this referencing. 

In a separate action, EPA has 

previously proposed a limited 

disapproval of the Indiana 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 (DC Circuit) 

to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). 76 FR 82219, December 30, 

2011. Consequently, we are not taking 

action in this notice to address the 

state’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1604 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, FRL–9622–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing limited 

approval of a revision to the 

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, through the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP) on 

December 20, 2010 that addresses 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. 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, anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward 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 Pennsylvania on the 

basis that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is 

also proposing to approve this revision 

as meeting the infrastructure 

requirements relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. In a 

separate action, EPA has previously 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP because 

of deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s 

regional haze SIP submittal arising from 

the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) 

to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR), see 76 FR 82219, December 30, 

2011. Consequently, we are not taking 

action in this notice to address the 

Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR to 

meet certain regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0002 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0002, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

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 during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the Commonwealth’s 

submittal are available at the 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by 

email at mailto:linden.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 20, 2010, the PADEP 

submitted a revision to its SIP to 

address regional haze for the first 

implementation period. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed 

action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Background Information 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

II. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS