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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3985 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

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

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

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value (44 FR 

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

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

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

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

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

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

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

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

Class I Federal area.’’ 

3Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

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

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Pennsylvania’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants to 

Visibility Impairment 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

5. BART 

C. Consultation With States and FLMs 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

I. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

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

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust) and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter, which impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

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 1 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. See 64 FR 35714, 

July 1, 1999. 

B. Background Information 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 2 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ See 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling, and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35714), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section II of this notice. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.3

Section 51.308(b) requires states to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Mid-Atlantic Region Air 

Management Association (MARAMA), 

the Northeast States for Coordination 

Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and 

the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 

established the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE–VU) regional 

planning organization. MANE–VU is a 

collaborative effort of state governments, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

tribal governments, and various federal 

agencies established to initiate and 

coordinate activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, 

and other air quality issues in the MidAtlantic and Northeast corridor of the 

United States. Member states and tribal 

governments include: Connecticut, 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, 

Rhode Island, St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 

and Vermont. 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require 

that within three years of promulgation 

of a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS), a state must ensure 

that its SIP, among other requirements, 

‘‘contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other types of 

emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State to protect visibility.’’ 

Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

that such SIP ‘‘meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of (Subchapter I) 

(relating to visibility protection).’’ 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ recognized the possibility 

that a state could potentially meet the 

visibility portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission 

of a Regional Haze SIP, as required by 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. 

EPA’s 2009 guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ recommended that a state 

could meet such visibility requirements 

through its regional haze SIP. EPA’s 

rationale supporting this 

recommendation was that the 

development of the regional haze SIPs 

was intended to occur in a collaborative 

environment among the states, and that 

through this process states would 

coordinate on emissions controls to 

protect visibility on an interstate basis. 

The common understanding was that, as 

a result of this collaborative 

environment, each state would take 

action to achieve the emissions 

reductions relied upon by other states in 

their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the RHR. This 

interpretation is consistent with the 

requirement in the RHR that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process must include ‘‘all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

importance of addressing the long-range 

transport of pollutants for visibility and 

encourages states to work together to 

develop plans to address haze. The 

regulations explicitly require each state 

to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. States 

working together through a regional 

planning process, are required to 

address an agreed upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 

requirements, appropriate regional haze 

SIPs will contain measures that will 

achieve these emissions reductions and 

will meet the applicable visibility 

related requirements of section 

110(a)(2). 

As a result of the regional planning 

efforts in the MANE–VU, all states in 

the MANE–VU region contributed 

information to a Technical Support 

Committee (TSC) which provides an 

analysis of the causes of haze, and the 

levels of contribution from all sources 

within each state to the visibility 

degradation of each Class I area. The 

MANE–VU states consulted in the 

development of reasonable progress 

goals, using the products of this 

technical consultation process to codevelop their reasonable progress goals 

for the MANE–VU Class I areas. The 

modeling done by MANE–VU relied on 

assumptions regarding emissions over 

the relevant planning period and 

embedded in these assumptions were 

anticipated emissions reductions in 

each of the states in MANE–VU, 

including reductions from BART and 

other measures to be adopted as part of 

the state’s long term strategy for 

addressing regional haze. The 

reasonable progress goals in the regional 

haze SIPs that have been prepared by 

the states in the MANE–VU region are 

based, in part, on the emissions 

reductions from nearby states that were 

agreed on through the MANE–VU 

process. 

Pennsylvania submitted a regional 

haze SIP on December 20, 2010, to 

address the requirements of the RHR. 

On December 7, 2007, Pennsylvania 

submitted its original 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP revisions. On June 6, 2008, 

Pennsylvania submitted amendments 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On April 26, 

2010, Pennsylvania submitted the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. On 

May 24, 2011, Pennsylvania submitted 

an amendment to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIP. In these 

submittals, Pennsylvania stated that 

their regional haze SIP would meet the 

requirements of the CAA, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), regarding visibility for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Pennsylvania also indicated it will meet 

the visibility requirements of 

110(a)(2)(J), and specifically references 

the regional haze SIP submitted on 

December 20, 2010. EPA has reviewed 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP and, as 

explained in section IV of this action, 

proposes to find that Pennsylvania’s 

regional haze submittal meets the 

portions of the requirements of the CAA 

sections 110(a)(2) relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

(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 for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3987 

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725, 

July 1, 1999. 

5The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

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

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.4

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

toward meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

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

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http:// 

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

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004 located at http:// 

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

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

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

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

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

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

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

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

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

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

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

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

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

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress that states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

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

also consult with potentially 

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

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

state’s Class I areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources5 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reasonable 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 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts (MW), a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART eligible source would not 

be expected to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

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

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

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

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 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 EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain 

subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 

part 97, do not require affected BART 

eligible electric generating units (EGUs) 

to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since 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. On 

December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to 

find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies. 76 FR 82219. EPA also 

proposed to revise the RHR to allow 

states to meet the requirements of an 

alternative program in lieu of BART by 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule. EPA has not 

taken final action on that rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

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

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address Reasonably 

Attributable Visibility Impairment; (2) 

measures to mitigate the impacts of 

construction activities; (3) emissions 

limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

As noted in EPA’s separate notice 

proposing revisions to the RHR (76 FR 

82219, December 30, 2011) a number of 

states, including Pennsylvania, fully 

consistent with EPA’s regulations at the 

time, relied on the trading programs of 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3989 

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 Pennsylvania’s long-term 

strategy and for that reason are not 

taking action on the long-term strategy 

in this notice. Comments on that 

proposed determination may be directed 

to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0729. 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

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

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• 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; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze submittal? 

On December 20, 2010, PADEP 

submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania 

SIP to address regional haze as required 

by EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Pennsylvania has no Class I areas 

within its borders, but has been 

identified as influencing the visibility 

impairment of all MANE–VU Class I 

areas (Brigantine Wilderness Area in 

New Jersey; Acadia National Park, 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area, and 

Roosevelt/Campobello International 

Park in Maine; Great Gulf Wilderness 

Area and Presidential Range/Dry River 

Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; 

Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont; 

Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek 

Wilderness Area in West Virginia; and 

Shenandoah National Park and James 

River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia). 

Pennsylvania is responsible for 

developing a regional haze SIP that 

addresses these Class I areas, that 

describes its long-term emission 

strategy, its role in the consultation 

processes, and how the SIP meets the 

other requirements in EPA’s regional 

haze regulations. However, since 

Pennsylvania has no Class I areas within 

its borders, Pennsylvania is not required 

to address the following regional haze 

SIP elements: (a) Calculation of baseline 

and natural visibility conditions, (b) 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and 

(d) RAVI requirements. 

B. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in section II. E of this 

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

the state to obtain its share of emission 

reductions to support the RPGs 

established by Maine, New Hampshire, 

Vermont, and New Jersey, the Class I 

area states. Pennsylvania’s LTS for the 

first implementation period addresses 

the emissions reductions from federal, 

state, and local controls that take effect 

in the Commonwealth from the baseline 

period starting in 2002 until 2018. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250. 

Pennsylvania participated in the 

MANE–VU regional strategy 

development process. As a participant, 

Pennsylvania supported a regional 

approach towards deciding which 

control measures to pursue for regional 

haze, which was based on technical 

analyses documented in the following 

reports: (a) Contributions to Regional 

Haze in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

United States; (b) Assessment of 

Reasonable Progress for Regional Haze 

in MANE–VU Class I Areas; (c) FiveFactor Analysis of BART-Eligible 

Sources: Survey of Options for 

Conducting BART Determinations; and 

(d) Assessment of Control Technology 

Options for BART-Eligible Sources: 

Steam Electric Boilers, Industrial 

Boilers, Cement Plants and Paper, and 

Pulp Facilities. 

The LTS was developed by 

Pennsylvania, in coordination with 

MANE–VU, identifying the emissions 

units within Pennsylvania that likely 

have the largest impacts currently on 

visibility at the MANE–VU Class I areas, 

estimating emissions reductions for 

2018, based on all controls required 

under federal and state regulations for 

the 2002–2018 period (including 

BART), and comparing projected 

visibility improvement with the uniform 

rate of progress for the MANE–VU Class 

I areas. 

Pennsylvania’s LTS includes 

measures needed to achieve its share of 

emissions reductions agreed upon 

through the consultation process with 

Class I area states and includes 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals established by 

MANE–VU for the Class I areas. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by MARAMA for MANE–VU 

with assistance from Pennsylvania. The 

2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions 

and assuming emissions growth due to 

projected increases in economic activity 

as well as applying reductions expected 

from federal and state regulations 

affecting the emissions of VOC and the 

visibility-impairing pollutants NOX, 

PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. The BART 

guidelines direct states to exercise 

judgment in deciding whether VOC and 

NH3 impair visibility in their Class I 

area(s). As discussed further in section 

III.B.3, below, MANE–VU demonstrated 

that anthropogenic emissions of sulfates 

are the major contributor to PM2.5 mass 

and visibility impairment at Class I 

areas in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

region and it was also determined that 

the total ammonia emissions in the 

MANE–VU region are extremely small. 

MANE–VU developed emissions 

inventories for four inventory source 

classifications: (1) Stationary point 

sources, (2) area sources, (3) off-road 

mobile sources, and (4) on-road mobile 

sources. The New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation also 

developed an inventory of biogenic 

emissions for the entire MANE–VU 

region. Stationary point sources are 

those sources that emit greater than a 

specified tonnage per year, depending 

on the pollutant, with data provided at 

the facility level. Stationary area sources 

are those sources whose individual 

emissions are relatively small, but due 

to the large number of these sources, the 

collective emissions from the source 

category could be significant. Off-road 

mobile sources are equipment that can 

move but do not use the roadways. Onroad mobile source emissions are 

automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles 

that use the roadway system. The 

emissions from these sources are 

estimated by vehicle type and road type. 

Biogenic sources are natural sources like 

trees, crops, grasses, and natural decay 

of plants. Stationary point sources 

emission data is tracked at the facility 

level. For all other source types 

emissions are summed on the county 

level. 

There are many federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that MANE–VU and Pennsylvania 

anticipate will reduce emissions 

between the baseline period and 2018. 

Emission reductions from these control 

programs were projected to achieve 

substantial visibility improvement by 

2018 in the MANE–VU Class I areas. To 

assess emissions reductions from 

ongoing air pollution control programs, 

BART, and reasonable progress goals 

MANE–VU developed 2018 emissions 

projections called Best and Final. The 

emissions inventory provided by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the 

Best and Final 2018 projections is based 

on adopted and enforceable 

requirements. 

Pennsylvania also relied on emission 

reductions from various federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules in the 

development of the 2018 emission 

inventory projections. These MACT 

rules include the combustion turbine 

and reciprocating internal combustion 

engines MACT, the industrial boiler and 

process heaters MACT and the 2, 4, 7, 

and 10 year MACT standards. 

On July 30, 2007, the U.S. District 

Court of Appeals mandated the vacatur 

and remand of the Industrial Boiler 

MACT Rule.6 This MACT was vacated 

since it was directly affected by the 

vacatur and remand of the Commercial 

and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 

(CISWI) Definition Rule. EPA proposed 

a new Industrial Boiler MACT rule to 

address the vacatur on June 4, 2010 (75 

FR 32006) and issued a final rule on 

March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608). The 

MANE–VU modeling included emission 

reductions from the vacated Industrial 

Boiler MACT rule. Pennsylvania did not 

redo its modeling analysis when the 

rule was re-issued. However, the 

expected reductions in SO2 and PM are 

small relative to the Pennsylvania 

inventory. Therefore, EPA finds the 

expected reductions of the new rule 

acceptable since the final rule requires 

compliance by 2014, it provides 

Pennsylvania time to assure the 

required controls are in place prior to 

the end of the first implementation 

period in 2018. In addition, the RHR 

requires that any resulting differences 

between emissions projections and 

actual emissions reductions that may 

occur will be addressed during the fiveyear review prior to the next 2018 

regional haze SIP. Tables 1 and 2 are 

summaries of the 2002 baseline and 

2018 estimated emissions inventories 

for Pennsylvania. The 2018 estimated 

emissions include emission growth as 

well as emission reductions due to 

ongoing emission control strategies, 

BART, and reasonable progress goals. 

TABLE 1—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR PENNSYLVANIA IN TONS PER YEAR

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 37,323 297,379 20,115 40,587 1,388 995,175 

Area .......................................................... 240,785 47,591 74,925 391,897 79,911 63,679 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 176,090 346,472 5,450 7,468 10,497 10,882 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3991 

TABLE 1—2002 EMISSION INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR PENNSYLVANIA IN TONS PER YEAR—Continued 

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Off-Road Mobile ....................................... 102,331 103,824 8,440 9,738 55 7,915 

Total .................................................. 556,529 795,266 108,930 449,690 91,851 1,077,651 

TABLE 2—2018 EMISSION SUMMARY FOR PENNSYLVANIA IN TONS PER YEAR

VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ......................................................... 46,004 162,067 39,468 60,480 3,381 266,455 

Area .......................................................... 230,011 50,829 50,842 195,467 117,400 42,072 

On-Road Mobile ....................................... 78,624 91,516 2,064 2,148 13,933 1,436 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................... 69,956 55,771 5,808 6,949 73 607 

Total .................................................. 424,595 360,183 98,182 265,044 134,787 310,570 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

MANE–VU performed modeling for 

the regional haze LTS for the 11 MidAtlantic and Northeast states and the 

District of Columbia. The modeling 

analysis is a complex technical 

evaluation that began with selection of 

the modeling system. MANE–VU used 

the following modeling system: 

• Meteorological Model: The FifthGeneration Pennsylvania State 

University/National Center for 

Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model (MM5) 

version 3.6 is a nonhydrostatic, 

prognostic meteorological model 

routinely used for urban- and regionalscale photochemical, PM2.5, and regional 

haze regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) version 2.1 modeling system 

is an emissions modeling system that 

generates hourly gridded speciated 

emission inputs of mobile, non-road 

mobile, area, point, fire, and biogenic 

emission sources for photochemical grid 

models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) version 4.5.1 is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. 

• Air Quality Model: The Regional 

Model for Aerosols and Deposition 

(REMSAD), version 8, is a Eulerian grid 

model that was primarily used to 

determine the attribution of sulfate 

species in the Eastern U.S. via the 

species-tagging scheme. 

• Air Quality Model: The California 

Puff Model (CALPUFF), version 5 is a 

non-steady-state Lagrangian puff model 

used to access the contribution of 

individual states’ emissions to sulfate 

levels at selected Class I receptor sites. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in 

the MANE–VU region for 2002 and 2018 

was carried out on a grid of 12x12 

kilometer (km) cells that covers the 11 

MANE–VU states (Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) and the District of 

Columbia and states adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

km grid cells that covers the continental 

United States, portions of Canada and 

Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and 

Pacific Oceans along the east and west 

coasts. Selection of a representative 

period of meteorology is crucial for 

evaluating baseline air quality 

conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. MANE–VU conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

MANE–VU states modeling was 

developed consistent with EPA’s 

Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating 

Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ 

scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pmrh-guidance.pdf, (EPA–454/B–07–002), 

April 2007, and EPA document, 

Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations, located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/ 

eiguid/index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, 

August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘EPA’s Modeling Guidance’’). 

MANE–VU examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. MANE–VU used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once MANE–VU determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

MANE–VU used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

3. Relative Contributions of Pollutants 

to Visibility Impairment 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, MANE–VU 

developed emission sensitivity model 

runs using CMAQ to evaluate visibility 

and air quality impacts from various 

groups of emissions and pollutant 

scenarios in the Class I areas on the 

20 percent worst visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

MANE–VU region, MANE–VU’s 

contribution assessment, demonstrated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

that sulfate is the major contributor to 

PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in the Northeast and MidAtlantic Region. Sulfate particles 

commonly account for more than 50 

percent of particle-related light 

extinction at northeastern Class I areas 

on the clearest days and for as much as 

or more than 80 percent on the haziest 

days. The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by MANE–VU predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

MANE–VU region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. As a 

result of the dominant role of sulfate in 

the formation of regional haze in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region, 

MANE–VU concluded that an effective 

emissions management approach would 

rely heavily on broad-based regional 

SO2 control efforts in the eastern United 

States. 

4. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Since the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania does not have a Class I 

area, it is not required to establish RPGs. 

However, Pennsylvania has been 

identified as influencing the visibility 

impairment of MANE–VU Class I Areas; 

Dolly Sods Wilderness and Otter Creek 

Wilderness Area in West Virginia; and 

Shenandoah National Park and James 

River Face Wilderness Area in Virginia. 

As such, Pennsylvania participated in 

consultations to discuss the reasonable 

progress goals considered by Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal 

Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) 

Class I area states, West Virginia and 

Virginia. West Virginia and Virginia 

wrote emails to Pennsylvania stating no 

additional reductions were needed from 

the Commonwealth to meet their RPGs. 

See Appendix D of the Pennsylvania 

submittal. West Virginia and Virginia 

determined that Pennsylvania met their 

RPGs with just the implementation of 

CAIR. See Appendix K of the 

Pennsylvania submittal. The VISTAS 

modeling that was done is different 

from the MANE–VU modeling because 

they used different assumptions about 

the efficiency of CAIR. EPA has 

determined that both RPOs modeling 

are acceptable. See EPA’s Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for the 

Modeling Portions of Pennsylvania’s 

Regional Haze SIP. As a result, the 

MANE–VU Class I area states adopted 

four RPGs that will provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility (MANE–VU ‘‘Asks’’): 

timely implementation of BART 

requirements; a 90 percent reduction in 

SO2 emissions from each of the EGU 

stacks identified by MANE–VU 

comprising a total of 167 stacks (15 of 

which are located in Pennsylvania); 

adoption of a low sulfur fuel oil 

strategy; and continued evaluation of 

other control measures to reduce SO2

and NOX emissions. States were 

required to reduce SO2 emissions from 

the highest emission stacks in the 

eastern United States by 90 percent or 

if it was infeasible to achieve that level 

of reduction, an alternative had to be 

identified which could include other 

point sources. Table 3 shows 

Pennsylvania’s 15 stacks identified and 

the anticipated controls. 

TABLE 3—EGU STACKS IN PENNSYLVANIA AND CONTROLS IDENTIFIED FROM THE MANE–VU 167 STACK LIST

Facility name & stack ID in appendix I Facility ID 

ORISPL Unit ID Unit type Anticipated controls & permit status 

Anticipated 

reduction in 

SO2 emissions 

(percent) 

Armstrong ................................................ 3178 2 Coal Steam ............ * 90 

Brunner Island PA_26 .............................. 3140 2 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 67–05005D.95 

Brunner Island ......................................... 3140 3 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 67–05005D.95 

Cheswick AC_04 ...................................... 8226 1 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in 2010 ............... 95 

Hatfields Ferry PA_35 .............................. 3179 2 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 30–00099F.95 

Homer City PA_37 ................................... 3122 1 Coal Steam ............ .................................................... ** 95 

Homer City PA_37 ................................... 3122 2 Coal Steam ............ .................................................... ** 95 

Keystone PA_39 ...................................... 3136 1 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in 2009 Plan Approval No. 03–00027B.95 

Keystone PA_39 ...................................... 3136 2 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in 2010 Plan Approval No. 03–00027B.95 

Martins Creek PA_08 ............................... 3148 2 Coal Steam ............ N/A. 

Montour PA_07 ........................................ 3149 1 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in operation. Plan 

Approval No.: 47–00001B.

95 

Montour PA_07 ........................................ 3149 2 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in operation. Plan 

Approval No.: 47–00001B.

95 

Portland PA_09 ........................................ 3113 1 Coal Steam. 

Portland .................................................... 3113 2 Coal Steam. 

Shawville .................................................. 3131 1 Coal Steam. 

* The PADEP is currently in litigation with Allegheny Energy, owner of Armstrong, to require SO2 controls as part of NSR and PSD alleged violations by the Department. 

** In June 2008, May and November 2010, EPA issued notices of violation to EME Homer City Generating Facility to require SO2 controls as 

part of NSR alleged violations under the Clean Air Act. In addition, the PADEP, together with New York State in July 2010, filed a 60-day notice 

of intent to sue related to these violations. 

Pennsylvania also identified 

additional EGUs that would be 

controlled to meet the reductions 

required in the MANE–VU Asks for the 

167 stacks. These additional sources are 

listed in Table 4. Pennsylvania averaged 

the EGU emission reductions for the 15 

identified stacks and an additional 6 

EGU stacks to meet the 90 percent 

control needed. EPA agrees that 

Pennsylvania has met the MANE–VU 

‘‘Ask’’ of 90 percent control on its share 

of the 167 stacks identified. EPA’s 

analysis of Pennsylvania’s averaging can 

be found in the TSD accompanying this 

rulemaking. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3993 

TABLE 4—ADDITIONAL EGU STACKS AND CONTROLS

Facility name Facility ID 

ORISPL Unit ID Unit type Anticipated controls & permit status 

Anticipated reduction in SO2

emissions 

(percent) 

WPS Res. Sunbury Six Boilers (Units 1– 

4).

3152 1–4 Coal Steam ............ Wet Scrubber in 2010 with a 

new stack that will exhaust all 

six boilers. Plan Approval No. 

55–00001C.

95 

Reliant Shawville Units 3 & 4 .................. 3131 3, 4 Coal Steam ............ FGD—Dry Scrubber (spray 

dryer absorber) in 2010. Plan 

Approval No. 17–00001D.

95 

On September 25, 2010, the 

Pennsylvania Environmental Quality 

Board (EQB) proposed the 

Commonwealth’s statewide low-sulfur 

heating and distillate oil regulation, in 

response to the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask’’ that 

states adopt a low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy. The Commonwealth has not 

finalized this strategy at the time of this 

proposal. However, following 

Pennsylvania’s SIP submittal on 

December 20, 2010, additional point 

sources have become subject to federally 

enforceable SO2 emission limits due to 

facility closures and federal actions. In 

addition, controls on Pennsylvania’s 

EGUs that are included on the list of 167 

stacks have resulted in emissions 

reductions greater than the 90 percent 

reduction of the MANE–VU ‘‘Ask.’’ 

These additional point source SO2

reductions are somewhat less than the 

reductions projected to result from 

adoption of a low-sulfur fuel oil 

strategy. However, this shortfall is not 

anticipated to interfere with the ability 

of other states to meet their respective 

reasonable progress goals. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to find 

that for the first planning period the 

enforceable emission reductions and 

potential visibility benefits achieved by 

reducing SO2 emissions at additional 

point sources adequately substitute for 

the emission reductions and potential 

visibility benefits that would have been 

achieved by Pennsylvania’s adoption of 

a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. A detailed 

discussion of this aspect of our proposal 

can be found in the TSD for this notice. 

We also note that implementation of 

recent federal measures is expected to 

result in further SO2 emission 

reductions during the first planning 

period. Although expected emission 

reductions cannot be relied upon to 

demonstrate that Pennsylvania has 

obtained its share of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the RPGs for 

the area, once these measures are 

implemented and the reductions 

quantified, EPA expects that 

Pennsylvania’s overall SO2 emission 

reductions will exceed those agreed to 

in the RPO process. 

5. BART 

BART is an element of Pennsylvania’s 

LTS. The BART regional haze 

requirement consists of three 

components: (a) Identification of all the 

BART eligible sources; (b) an 

assessment of whether the BART 

eligible sources are subject to BART; 

and (c) the determination of the BART 

controls. 

The first component of a BART 

evaluation is to identify all the BART 

eligible sources. The BART eligible 

sources were identified by utilizing the 

criteria in the BART Guidelines as 

follows: 

• Determine whether one or more 

emissions units at the facility fit within 

one of the 26 categories listed in the 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158–39159); 

• Determine whether the emission 

unit(s) was in existence on August 7, 

1977 and begun operation after August 

6, 1962; 

• Determine whether potential 

emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 from 

subject units are 250 tons or more per 

year. 

The BART Guidelines recommend 

addressing SO2, NOX, and PM10 as 

visibility-impairment pollutants and 

leave it up to the discretion of states to 

evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions. 

Because of the lack of tools available to 

estimate emissions and subsequently 

model VOC and ammonia effects on 

visibility Pennsylvania did not address 

them for BART. Pennsylvania identified 

34 sources as BART-eligible as listed in 

Table 5. Pennsylvania also identified 

nine sources that are relatively small 

emission sources with the potential 

emissions that exceed the 250 tons per 

year or more, but have actual emissions 

well below 250 tons per year to accept 

federally enforceable limits to make 

them not BART-eligible which are listed 

in Table 6. If any of the sources in Table 

6 request an increase in NOX, SO2 and 

PM emissions greater than 250 tons per 

year of any one of these pollutants the 

facility would become subject to BART. 

TABLE 5—PENNSYLVANIA BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES

Facility County 

EXELON GENERATION CO/EDDYSTONE .................................................................................................................. Delaware. 

ISG PLATE LLC/COATESVILLE .................................................................................................................................... Chester. 

SUNOCO INC (R&M)/MARCUS HOOK REFINERY ..................................................................................................... Delaware. 

CONOCOPHILLIPS CO/TRAINER REF ........................................................................................................................ Delaware. 

PPL MONTOUR LLC/MONTOUR SES .......................................................................................................................... Montour. 

PPL MARTINS CREEK LLC/MARTINS CREEK ............................................................................................................ Northampton. 

RELIANT ENERGY/PORTLAND GENERATING STATION .......................................................................................... Northampton. 

LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHALL PLT .............................................................................................................................. Lehigh. 

KEYSTONE PORTLAND CE/EAST ALLEN .................................................................................................................. Northampton. 

ORION POWER MIDWEST/NEW CASTLE PLT ........................................................................................................... Lawrence. 

CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT .......................................................................................................................... Lawrence. 

ESSROC/BESSEMER .................................................................................................................................................... Lawrence. 

AK STEEL CORP/BUTLER WORKS ............................................................................................................................. Butler. 

UNITED REFINING CO/WARREN PLT ......................................................................................................................... Warren. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—PENNSYLVANIA BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES—Continued 

Facility County 

PPL BRUNNER ISLAND LLC/BRUNNER ISLAND ....................................................................................................... York. 

APPLETON PAPERS INC/SPRING MILL ...................................................................................................................... Blair. 

PH GLATFELTER CO/SPRING GROVE ....................................................................................................................... York. 

LEHIGH CEMENT CO/EVANSVILLE CEMENT PLT .................................................................................................... Berks. 

CARMEUSE LIME INC/MILLARD LIME PLT ................................................................................................................. Lebanon. 

LEHIGH CEMENT CO/YORK OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................ York. 

ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY/HATFIELDS FERRY POWER STA ......................................................................... Greene. 

ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY/MITCHELL POWER STA ......................................................................................... Washington. 

EME HOMER CITY GEN LP .......................................................................................................................................... Indiana. 

RELIANT ENERGY NORTHEAST/CONEMAUGH PLT ................................................................................................ Indiana. 

RELIANT ENERGY NORTHEAST MGMT/KEYSTONE POWER PLT .......................................................................... Armstrong. 

FIRSTENERGY GEN CORP/BRUCE MANSFIELD PLT ............................................................................................... Beaver. 

DYNO NOBEL INC/DONORA ........................................................................................................................................ Washington. 

RELIANT/CHESWICK .................................................................................................................................................... Allegheny. 

US STEEL/CLAIRTON WORKS .................................................................................................................................... Allegheny. 

ALLEGHENY LUDLUM/BRACKENRIDGE ..................................................................................................................... Allegheny. 

SUNOCO CHEMICALS/FRANKFORD PLANT .............................................................................................................. Philadelphia. 

SUNOCO INC (R&M)/PHILADELPHIA REFINERY ....................................................................................................... Philadelphia. 

TRIGEN/EDISON STATION ........................................................................................................................................... Philadelphia. 

TRIGEN/SCHUYLKILL STATION ................................................................................................................................... Philadelphia. 

TABLE 6—PENNSYLVANIA FACILITIES NOT BART-ELIGIBLE DUE TO FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE PERMIT RESTRICTIONS

Facility County 

VICTAULIC CO AMER/FORKS FACILITY ........................................................................................................ Northampton. 

AMERICAN REFINING GR/BRADFORD .......................................................................................................... McKean. 

MERCER LIME & STONE/BRANCHTON ......................................................................................................... Butler. 

DUFERCO FARRELL CORP/FARRELL PLT .................................................................................................... Mercer. 

INMETCO/ELLWOOD CITY .............................................................................................................................. Lawrence. 

INDSPEC CHEM CORP/PETROLIA ................................................................................................................. Butler. 

LWB REFRACTORIES CO/W MANCHESTER ................................................................................................. York. 

EXIDE TECH/READING SMELTER .................................................................................................................. Berks. 

HORSEHEAD CORP/MONACA SMELTER ...................................................................................................... Beaver. 

The second component of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BART 

eligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area 

are subject to BART. As discussed in the 

BART Guidelines, a state may choose to 

consider all BART eligible sources to be 

subject to BART (70 FR 39161). 

Consistent with the MANE–VU Board’s 

decision in June 2004 that because of 

the collective importance of BART 

sources, BART determinations should 

be made by the MANE–VU states for 

each BART eligible source. 

Pennsylvania identified each of its 

BART eligible sources as subject to 

BART. 

The final component of a BART 

evaluation is making BART 

determinations for all BART subject 

sources. In making BART 

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

the CAA requires that states consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. Section 

(e)(2) of the RHR provides that a state 

may opt to implement an emissions 

trading program or other alternative 

measure rather than to require sources 

subject to BART to install, operate, and 

maintain BART. To do so, the state must 

demonstrate that the emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure 

will achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the 

installation and operation of BART. The 

34 sources in Pennsylvania that the 

Commonwealth found to be subject to 

BART are discussed below in Table 7. 

For the EGUs, Pennsylvania relied on 

CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements 

for SO2 and NOX. As CAIR does not 

address PM emissions, Pennsylvania 

conducted BART analyses for PM for 

these EGUs subject to BART. 

TABLE 7—PENNSYLVANIA BART LIMITS AND CONTROLS

BART Source name & unit ID Pollutant and emission limit 

ConocoPhillips FCCU/CO Boiler Unit ID C01 .......................................... SO2: 25 parts per million volumetric dry (ppmvd) (365-day rolling average). 

PM: 0.5 pound (lb)/1000 lb coke burn (3-hr average). 

NOX: 121.1 ppmvd (365-day). 

155.3 ppmvd (7-day). 

ConocoPhillips Platform Feed Heater Unit ID 738 .................................. NOX: 0.12 pound per million metric british thermal units (lb/MMBtu). 

SO2: 0.011 lb/MMBtu (both limits are on an annual basis). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3995 

TABLE 7—PENNSYLVANIA BART LIMITS AND CONTROLS—Continued 

BART Source name & unit ID Pollutant and emission limit 

Sunoco Inc. Marcus Hook Refinery FCCU/CO Boiler Unit ID 101 and 

COB1.

SO2: 25 ppmvd (365-day rolling average). 

NOX: 20 ppmvd (365-day rolling average). 

PM: 1.0 lb/1000 lb coke burn. 

Sunoco Inc. Marcus Hook Refinery 17–2A, H–01 Heater ....................... NOX: 0.25 lb/MMBtu (24-hr basis). 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

United Refining Co. Boiler 4 ..................................................................... NOX: 0.173 lb/MMBtu. 

SO2: 24.3 lbs/hr. 

United Refining Co. Crude Heater—North ............................................... NOX: 0.226 lb/MMBtu. 

SO2: 207.7 lbs/hr. 

Carmeuse Lime Inc. Kiln Number 5 ......................................................... NOX: 6.0 lb/ton lime. 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

Lehigh Cement Co. Evansville Plant Kiln Number 1 ............................... NOX: 367.7 pound per hour (lbs/hr). 

SO2: 59.4 lbs/hr. 

PM: 34.8 tons/12-month period. 

PM10: 87.4 tons/12-month period. 

Lehigh Cement Co. Evansville Plant Kiln Number 2 ............................... NOX: 367.7 lbs/hr. 

SO2: 59.4 lbs/hr. 

PM: 34.8 tons/12-month period. 

PM10: 87.4 tons/12-month period. 

Lehigh Cement Co. York Operations White Cement Kiln ........................ NOX: 8.2 lbs/ton. 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

PM: 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot (grains/dscf). 

Lafarge Corp. Whitehall Plant Kiln K–2 ................................................... NOX: 297.7 lbs/hr. 

NOX: 260.5 lbs/hr. 

SO2: 362 lbs/hr. 

PM: 14.8 lbs/hr. 

Lafarge Corp. Whitehall Plant Kiln K–3 ................................................... NOX: 202.3 lbs/hr. 

NOX: 166.0 lbs/hr. 

SO2: 195.0 lbs/hr. 

PM: 7.3 lbs/hr. 

CEMEX Inc. Wampum Plant Kiln No. 3 ................................................... NOX: 6.2 lbs/ton clinker. (May–Sep 6.0 lbs/ton). 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

PM: 0.02 grains/dscf. 

ESSROC Cement Bessemer Plant Kiln No. 5 ......................................... NOX: 476 lbs/hr. 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

PM: 0.02 grains/dscf. 

Keystone Cement Co. East Allen Plant Kiln No. 2 .................................. NOX: 529 lbs/hr. 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

PM: 0.02 grains/dscf. 

ISG Plate LLC Coatesville Plant Electric Arc Furnace D ........................ SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

PM: 0.02 grains/dscf (primary baghouse). 

PM: 0.0052 grains/dscf (secondary baghouses). 

AK Steel Corp. Butler Works Electric Arc Furnaces: #2, #3, and #4 ...... NOX: 75 lbs/hr. 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

PM: 0.0036 grains/dscf. 

PH Glatfelter Co. Spring Grove Plant No. 1 Power Boiler ...................... NOX: 0.66 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

SO2: 3.7 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

PM: 3.6 × Heat Input (lbs/MMBtu) raised to a negative 0.56 power. 

Appleton Papers Inc. Spring Mill Plant No. 3 Power Boiler ..................... NOX: 0.63 lb/MMBtu. 

SO2: 4.0 lb/MMBtu (over any 1-hr period). 

PM: 3.6 × Heat Input (lbs/MMBtu) raised to a negative 0.56 power. 

Dyno Nobel Inc. Donora Plant Ammonia Oxidation Plant ....................... NOX: 396 tons/12-month period. 

NO2: 5.5 lb/ton acid product (expressed as 100% HNO3). 

Allegheny Energy Hatfields Ferry Power Main Boilers (#1, #2, and #3) PM: 0.075 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

PPL Brunner Island Brunner Island Boilers 2 and 3 ................................ PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

Exelon Generation Eddystone Plant Boilers 3 and 4 .............................. PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

EME Homer City Homer City Plant Main Boilers (#1, #2, #3) ................. PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

PPL Montour LLC Montour SES Boilers 1 and 2 .................................... PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

Reliant Energy LLC Portland Generating Boiler #2 ................................. PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu. 

First Energy Corp. Bruce Mansfield Plt Main Boilers (#1, #2, #3) .......... PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

Allegheny Energy Mitchell Power Station Boiler #3 ................................. PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu. 

Orion Power Midwest New Castle Plant Boiler #5 .................................. PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu. 

Reliant Energy NE Keystone Power Plant Boilers 1 and 2 ..................... PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

PPL Martins Creek Martins Creek Plant Boilers 3 and 4 ........................ PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

Reliant Energy NE Conemaugh Plant Boilers 1 and 2 ............................ PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

Trigen Edison Station Philadelphia Boilers 3 and 4 ................................ NOX: 0.5 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu for each boiler. 

SO2: 0.5% sulfur (#6 fuel oil), 0.2% sulfur (#2 oil). 

Trigen Schuylkill Station Philadelphia Boiler #26 ..................................... NOX: 0.36 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling avg). 

PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu. 

SO2: 0.5% sulfur (#6 fuel oil). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3996 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—PENNSYLVANIA BART LIMITS AND CONTROLS—Continued 

BART Source name & unit ID Pollutant and emission limit 

Sunoco Chemicals Frankfort Plant Philadelphia Boiler No. 3 ................. NOX: 0.3 lbs/MMBtu. 

PM: 0.1 lb/MMBtu. 

SO2: 0.52 lbs/MMBtu. 

Sunoco Refinery, Inc Philadelphia FCCU/CO Boiler Unit ID 1232 .......... SO2: 25 ppmvd (365-day rolling average). 

NOX: 20 ppmvd (365-day rolling average). 

PM: 0.5 lb/1000 lb coke burn. 

Sunoco Refinery Inc. Philadelphia Process Heaters ............................... NOX: 0.020 lb/MMBtu (24-hr basis). 

SO2: 500 ppmvd. 

Allegheny Ludlum Corp. Allegheny County 

Basic Oxygen Furnaces ........................................................................... PM: 68 tons per year (tpy). 

Slab Grinder ............................................................................................. PM: 230 tpy. 

Plate Burner/Torch Cutter ........................................................................ PM: 13 tpy. 

Loftus Soaking Pits ................................................................................... PM: 14 tpy, NOX: 194 tpy. 

US Steel Clairton, Allegheny County, Clairton Coke Works 

Desulfurization Plant ................................................................................. SO2: 590 tpy; NOX: 27 tpy. 

Boiler #2 ................................................................................................... SO2: 1508 tpy; NOX: 1285 tpy. 

R1 Boiler ................................................................................................... SO2: 796 tpy: NOX: 525 tpy. 

T1 Boiler ................................................................................................... SO2: 572 tpy; NOX: 358 tpy. 

Orion Power Cheswick Plant Allegheny County Boiler No. 1 .................. SO2: 67,452 typ; NOX: 10,840 tpy. 

PM10: 361 tpy. 

EPA agrees with PADEP’s analyses 

and conclusions for the BART emission 

units located in Table 7 above. EPA has 

reviewed the Pennsylvania analyses and 

concluded they were conducted in a 

manner that is consistent with EPA’s 

BART Guidelines. EPA has determined 

that Pennsylvania’s submittals meet the 

requirements of section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA to consider available 

technology, the cost of compliance, the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

any pollution control equipment in use 

at the source, the remaining useful life 

of the source, and the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. Therefore, 

the conclusions reflect a reasonable 

application of EPA’s guidance to these 

sources. EPA’s analysis of these BART 

determinations can be found in the 

accompanying TSD for this rulemaking. 

The BART determinations for each of 

the facilities discussed above and the 

resulting BART emission limits were 

adopted by Pennsylvania into its 

regional haze SIP. PADEP incorporated 

the BART emission limits into Title V 

permits. The BART units in 

Pennsylvania are required to comply 

with these emission limits no later than 

five years after publication in the 

Federal Register of EPA’s final approval 

of the Pennsylvania regional haze SIP, 

to allow time for needed operational 

changes. 

C. Consultation With States and FLMs 

On May 10, 2006, the MANE–VU 

State Air Directors adopted the InterRPO State/Tribal and FLM Consultation 

Framework that documented the 

consultation process within the context 

of regional haze planning, and was 

intended to create greater certainty and 

understanding among RPOs. MANE–VU 

states held ten consultation meetings 

and/or conference calls from March 1, 

2007 through March 21, 2008. In 

addition to MANE–VU members 

attending these meetings and conference 

calls, participants from VISTAS, 

Midwest RPO, and the relevant Federal 

Land Managers were also in attendance. 

In addition to the conference calls and 

meeting, the FLMs were given the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

each of the technical documents 

developed by MANE–VU. 

Pennsylvania submitted a draft 

regional haze SIP to the relevant FLMs 

for review and comment pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(2). The FLM provided 

comments on the draft regional haze SIP 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). 

The comments received from the FLMs 

were addressed and incorporated in 

Pennsylvania’s SIP revision. The FLM’s 

comments and PADEP’s responses can 

be found in Appendix AA of the 

Pennsylvania submittal. The PADEP 

provided public notice of the 

opportunity to comment on the SIP 

revision and provided public notice of 

public hearing on October 9, 2010. The 

PADEP did not receive any comments 

during the public comment period. 

Pennsylvania commits in their SIP to 

ongoing consultation with the FLMs on 

Regional Haze issues throughout the 

implementation. 

D. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

Consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308(g), Pennsylvania has 

committed to submitting a report on 

reasonable progress (in the form of a SIP 

revision) to the EPA every five years 

following the initial submittal of its 

regional haze SIP. The reasonable 

progress report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

MANE–VU Class I areas influenced by 

Pennsylvania. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of the revision to the Pennsylvania SIP 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania through the PADEP on 

December 20, 2010 as meeting some of 

the applicable regional haze 

requirements as set forth in sections 

169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 

CFR 51.300–308, as described 

previously in this action. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to find that this 

revision meets the applicable visibility 

related requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2) including but not limited to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 

taking this action pursuant to those 

provisions of the CAA. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 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 (D.C. 

Circuit) to EPA of CAIR. See 76 FR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3997 

82219. Consequently, we are not taking 

action in this notice to address the 

Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR to 

meet certain regional haze requirements. 

V. 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 proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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 proposed limited 

approval of Pennsylvania’s Regional 

Haze Plan 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1512 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS