Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0196-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of the Minnesota Regional Haze SIP
Posted Date: 2015-09-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3681-3691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1519]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0037; FRL-9622-8]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Minnesota State Implementation 
Plan addressing regional haze for the first implementation period. 
Minnesota submitted its regional haze plan on December 30, 2009. A 
supplemental submission was made on January 5, 2012. The Minnesota 
regional haze plan addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) and Regional Haze Rule 
(RHR) requirements to remedy any existing and prevent future 
anthropogenic visibility impairment at mandatory Class I areas. We are 
proposing fully to approve the Minnesota regional haze plan if 
Minnesota submits its proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) emission limits for taconite facilities in fully adopted form 
prior to our final action under this proposal, or to conditionally 
approve the plan if Minnesota has not done so.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0037, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0037. 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. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as

[[Page 3682]]

copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at 
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Minnesota's regional haze plan?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic 
area and that emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 
nitrates, organic particles, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and its 
precursors--sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and in some cases ammonia (NH3), and 
volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine particle precursors react in the 
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter. Aerosol PM2.5 
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 
impairment reduces the clarity and distance one can see. 
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition 
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range, the distance at which an 
object is barely discernable, in many Class I areas \1\ in the western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers. That is about one-half to two-
thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air 
pollution. In the Eastern and Midwestern Class I areas of the United 
States, the average visual range is generally less than 30 kilometers, 
or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated 
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas 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,'' we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal 
area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's RHR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment 
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources known as, ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (RAVI). 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, the RHR, 
on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III. The requirement to submit a regional haze state 
implementation plan (SIP) applies to all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various federal agencies. Pollution affecting the air quality in Class 
I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of 
kilometers. Therefore, effectively addressing the problem of visibility 
impairment in Class I areas

[[Page 3683]]

means that states need to develop coordinated strategies that take into 
account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air 
quality in another state.
    EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective because the pollutants that lead 
to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad 
geographic areas. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were 
developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first 
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states 
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country and then pursued the 
development of regional strategies to reduce PM2.5 emissions 
and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The RPO for Minnesota is the Central Regional Air Planning 
Association (CENRAP). CENRAP's membership includes the states of 
Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 
Oklahoma, and Texas, along with tribes and federal land management 
agencies (FLMs).
    Minnesota also worked with the Midwest RPO (MRPO) on technical 
analyses of regional haze and visibility in the Midwest. The MRPO 
member states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Transport 
Rule to Regional Haze Requirements

    The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) required some states to reduce 
emissions of SO2 and NOX that contribute to 
violations of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
for PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 
established emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX. A 
2006 EPA determination (71 FR 60612, October 13, 2006) establishes that 
states opting to participate in the CAIR program need not require BART 
for SO2 and NOX at BART-eligible electric 
generating units (EGUs). Many states relied on CAIR as an alternative 
to BART for SO2 and NOX for its subject EGUs.
    On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision to vacate 
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) in their entirety. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). However, the Court issued an order on December 23, 
2008, remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR 
FIPs in response to EPA's petition for rehearing. The Court held that, 
among other things, EPA had not properly addressed possible errors in 
analysis supporting the inclusion of Minnesota in CAIR for 
PM2.5. The Court left the EPA CAIR rule and CAIR SIPs and 
FIPs in place until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the 
court's opinion. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178. In a 
November 3, 2009 (74 FR 56721) final rule, EPA administratively stayed 
the effectiveness of CAIR and the CAIR FIP with respect to Minnesota 
and sources in Minnesota only.
    EPA subsequently promulgated the Transport Rule, also known as the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, to replace CAIR. The final Transport 
Rule was published on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208). Minnesota is 
covered by the Transport Rule.
    In the Transport Rule, EPA noted that it had not conducted a 
technical analysis at that time to determine whether compliance with 
the Transport Rule would satisfy the requirements of the RHR addressing 
alternatives to BART. EPA has since conducted such an analysis and 
proposed on December 30, 2011, that compliance with the Transport Rule 
will provide for greater reasonable progress toward improving 
visibility than source-specific BART controls for EGUs located in those 
states covered by the Transport Rule. 76 FR 82219. On that same day, 
the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport 
Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking 
a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, 
the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's 
resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer 
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court 
also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer the CAIR 
in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of the 
Transport Rule.
    On January 5, 2012, Minnesota submitted a draft supplement to its 
regional haze plan, including a statement that it wishes to rely on the 
Transport Rule to satisfy BART requirements for SO2 and 
NOX for EGUs.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas, the reasonable progress goal (RPG). Section 169A of the CAA and 
EPA's implementing regulations require states to establish LTS for 
making reasonable progress toward meeting the RPG. 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 those sources to install BART reducing visibility impairment. 
The specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further 
detail below.

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

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric or 
unit for expressing visibility impairment. This visibility metric 
expresses uniform proportional changes in haziness in terms of common 
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from 
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciview 
is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light 
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a 
logarithm function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking 
progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because 
each deciview change is an equal incremental change in visibility 
perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in 
visibility at one deciview.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs, defining baseline, 
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. 
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable 
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying 
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air 
pollution. The national goal is a return to natural conditions such 
that anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part 
of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP is submitted and at the 
progress review every five years, midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. The RHR requires states with Class I areas 
(Class I states) to determine the degree of impairment in deciviews for 
the average of the 20 percent (%) least impaired (best) and 20% most 
impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each 
of its Class I areas. Each

[[Page 3684]]

state must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions 
for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural 
visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of 
pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total 
light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to 
states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural, and current 
visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA's Guidance for 
Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, 
September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking 
Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 
located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress 
Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIP, due December 17, 2007, the 
``baseline visibility conditions'' are the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20% 
best days and 20% worst 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 comparisons of future conditions 
against baseline conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. 
In general, the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is considered the time 
from which improvement in visibility is measured.

B. Determination of RPGs

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress toward achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two distinct RPGs, one for the best 
days and one for the worst days for every Class I area for each 
approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate 
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states 
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward 
achieving natural visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a state with 
a mandatory Class I area (Class I state) must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the worst days over the approximately 10-
year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
best days.
    Class I states have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, 
but are required to consider the following factors established in 
section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): 
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) 
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and 
(4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. The 
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 
(``uniform rate of progress'' or ``glide path'') and the emissions 
reduction needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 
approximately 10-year period of the SIP. In setting RPGs, each Class I 
state must also consult with potentially contributing states, i.e., 
those states that may affect visibility impairment at the Class I 
state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

C. BART

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain older large stationary sources to address 
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, CAA section 
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such 
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the 
natural visibility goal including a requirement that certain categories 
of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 
procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. The set 
of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject to BART is listed 
in CAA section 169A(g)(7). The state can require source-specific BART 
controls, but it also has the flexibility to adopt an alternative such 
as a trading program only if the alternate provides greater progress 
toward improving visibility than BART.
    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (BART Guidelines) to assist states in determining which of 
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in 
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. A 
state must use the approach in the BART Guidelines in making a BART 
determination for a fossil fuel-fired EGU with total generating 
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. States are encouraged, but not 
required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations 
for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing 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 emissions impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    States may select an exemption threshold value for their BART 
modeling under the BART Guidelines, below which a BART-eligible source 
may be considered to have a small enough contribution to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area to warrant being exempted from the BART 
requirement. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. The 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. 
Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impact.
    The state must identify potential BART sources in its SIP, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document its 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state to consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may

[[Page 3685]]

reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. The 
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA 
approval of the state's regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, 
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all 
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    The RHR also allows states to implement an alternative program in 
lieu of BART if desired so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater progress toward the national visibility 
goal than implementing BART controls. EPA made such a demonstration for 
CAIR under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze 
program. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that 
states participating in the CAIR trading program under 40 CFR part 96 
pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the 
CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not 
require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain 
BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, so states were 
still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 
subject to BART for that pollutant.
    As described above in section II, the DC Circuit found CAIR to be 
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. The rule was remanded to 
EPA but left in place until the Agency replaced it. EPA replaced CAIR 
with the Transport Rule in August 2011.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading 
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable 
progress towards the national goal than would be obtained by 
implementing BART for SO2 and NOX for BART-
subject EGUs in the area subject to the Transport Rule 76 FR 82219. 
Based on that proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 
allow states to meet the requirements of an alternative program in lieu 
of BART by participation in the trading programs under the Transport 
Rule. The Transport Rule is not applicable to emissions of PM, so 
states would still be required to conduct a BART analysis for PM 
emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. EPA has not 
taken final action on that rule.

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

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS

    EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), which is a part of the RHR, regarding 
the LTS for RAVI. The RAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and 
SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date 
of submission of the state's first plan addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). The 
state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a 
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on or before this 
date. It must also submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first 
regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs and periodic progress 
reports evaluating progress towards RPGs must be submitted consistent 
with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set 
forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 
review of a state's LTS must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision and 
report on both RAVI and regional haze impairment. In cases involving 
sources newly certified as RAVI sources, 40 CFR 51.306(c) provides for 
the State to revise its plan as appropriate within 3 years of receipt 
of the RAVI certification.

F. 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, meaning that the state reviews and uses 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy must also 
provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not 
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met. The monitoring 
strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP and it must be 
reviewed every five years.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state

[[Page 3686]]

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, to 
be submitted in electronic format, if available;
     A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a 
baseline year, emissions for the most recent year with available data, 
and future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to 
update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018 with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of 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.

G. Consultation With States and FLMs

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

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Minnesota's regional haze plan?

    Minnesota submitted its regional haze plan on December 30, 2009, 
which included revisions to the Minnesota SIP to address regional haze. 
Minnesota also supplemented its regional haze plan by submitting 
additional material on January 5, 2012.

A. Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I 
areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be 
affected by the state's emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Minnesota has two 
Class I areas, Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area (Boundary Waters) 
and Voyageurs National Park (Voyageurs), within the state. Minnesota is 
responsible for developing a regional haze plan that addresses these 
Class I areas and for consulting with states that affect its areas.
    Minnesota reviewed technical analyses conducted by CENRAP and other 
RPOs to determine what Class I areas outside the state are affected by 
Minnesota emission sources. Minnesota's modeling shows that its 
emissions contribute to visibility impairment at Isle Royale National 
Park in Michigan. Minnesota emission sources were also found by the 
CENRAP analysis to contribute to visibility impairment at Wichita 
Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma. Minnesota has met the 
requirement to identify affected Class I areas.

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The RHR requires Class I states to calculate the baseline, current, 
and natural conditions for their Class I areas.
    Natural background visibility is estimated by calculating the 
expected light extinction using estimates of natural concentrations of 
pollutants adjusted by an estimate of humidity. The IMPROVE algorithm 
is used to make this calculation. EPA allows states to use an 
alternative approach to calculating natural conditions. One alternative 
approach is to use the refined IMPROVE algorithm, which is what 
Minnesota chose to do. Minnesota determined that natural visibility 
conditions for Boundary Waters are best represented by an average of 
11.6 dv for the 20% most impaired days and 3.4 dv for the 20% least 
impaired days. Natural conditions for Voyageurs were predicted to be 
12.2 dv on the most impaired days and 4.3 dv on the least impaired 
days.
    The baseline visibility conditions are the same as the current 
conditions for this initial regional haze implementation period. 
Minnesota used IMPROVE monitoring data to calculate the baseline 
visibility conditions at its Class I areas. Data from 2000-2004 was 
used to calculate the impairment on the 20% best and 20% worst 
visibility days at Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. The refined IMPROVE 
equation is used to calculate the baseline conditions.
    Minnesota calculated the baseline visibility impairment at Boundary 
Waters as 19.9 dv on the 20% most impaired days and 6.4 dv on the 20% 
least impaired days. The state found the baseline visibility impairment 
at Voyageurs to be 19.5 dv on the 20% worst visibility days and 7.1 dv 
on the cleanest 20% of days.
    Minnesota compared the baseline or current to the natural 
visibility impairment. This determines the visibility improvement 
needed over the 60-year period (2004 to 2064) to reach natural 
conditions. An annual rate can simply be calculated by dividing the 
needed improvement by 60 years. The state can use the annual visibility 
improvement rate for the most impaired days to set its uniform rate of 
progress (URP) targets for each implementation period.
    For Boundary Waters, the difference between the baseline, 19.9 dv, 
and the natural, 11.6 dv, on the 20% most impaired days is 8.3 dv, 
which yields an annual rate of 0.14 dv. The difference on the 20% least 
impaired days between the 6.4 dv baseline and 3.4 dv natural conditions 
is 3.0 dv. The differences at Voyageurs are 7.3 dv on the most impaired 
days (19.5-12.2 dv) and 2.8 dv (7.1-4.3 dv) on the least impaired days. 
The annual rate of visibility improvement needed for the 20% most 
impaired days is 0.12 dv per year to achieve the URP. Minnesota then 
calculated the 2018 URP goals of 17.9 dv for Boundary Waters and 17.8 
dv for Voyageurs. These goals for the 20% most impaired days were 
calculated by multiplying the annual rate of improvement by the 14 
years since the 2004 baseline. There is to be no degradation of the 
visibility on 20% best days, so no calculation is needed as the 2018 
goals match the baseline. EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance states 
that the URP is not a presumptive target for the RPG. Class I states 
can set the RPG at the URP or it can set the RPG at greater or less 
visibility impairment.

C. RPGs

    Minnesota teamed with MRPO and Michigan to establish RPGs for the 
four Northern Class I areas including

[[Page 3687]]

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. The Northern Class I areas consultation 
group worked together to determine the RPGs by first identifying and 
prioritizing sources that contribute to the worst visibility days and 
to establish the relative visibility impairment affects. The group 
determined that the priority emission sources are SO2 point 
sources, NOX from both point and mobile sources, and ammonia 
from agricultural operations. Minnesota identified regional 
SO2 emissions from EGUs as a key contributor to visibility 
impairment in Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. Minnesota also identified 
NOX and SO2 emissions from sources in the six 
counties of Northeastern Minnesota as important contributors. The 
counties of Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and Saint Louis 
comprise the Northeast Minnesota area.
    The second step of the process was to identify control options for 
the priority sources. The group identified existing control measures 
including CAIR, BART, Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, 
on-road mobile source programs, and non-road mobile source programs. 
MRPO examined different potential control scenarios, two control levels 
for EGUs and two control levels for industrial, commercial, and 
institutional (ICI) boilers. Minnesota determined that most of its 
priority sources, including EGUs and indurating furnaces at taconite 
facilities, are subject to BART. Other priority sources will be subject 
to emissions control to comply with the Northeast Minnesota plan (see 
section IV.E).
    The third step of the process is to assess existing control 
programs. In its initial plan development, Minnesota considered 
reductions from CAIR. Subsequently, CAIR was suspended in Minnesota, 
but then EPA promulgated the Transport Rule to regulate EGU emissions 
in Minnesota again. Therefore, Minnesota's plan continues to include 
EGU emission reductions that once again may be considered mandated by a 
regional trading program. The state is also accounting for emission 
reductions from voluntary projects being undertaken by EGUs due to 
Minnesota statue 216B.1692, which allows the recovery of the costs of 
environmental projects. Minnesota further considered the emission 
reductions from implementing BART controls on its sources and sources 
in other states. Minnesota took into account the reductions anticipated 
from other federal controls such as Tier II mobile source standards, 
heavy-duty diesel engine standards, low sulfur fuel, and non-road 
mobile source control programs.
    The fourth step is to determine which control options may be 
reasonable. The Northern Class I areas group further considered the 
MRPO EGU scenario with 0.15 lb SO2/MMBTU and 0.10 lb 
NOX/MMBTU limits by 2013 and the ICI boiler option with a 
40% reduction in SO2 emissions and a 60% reduction in 
NOX emissions by 2013. Minnesota used a CENRAP emissions-to-
distance analysis. CENRAP took source emissions in tons divided by the 
distance to an affected Class I area in kilometers. When this ratio was 
greater than or equal to five, potential controls were evaluated. This 
analysis identified some Minnesota sources with potential for cost 
effective NOX reductions. However, Minnesota noted that the 
identified sources are already implementing controls.
    The final step of the process to determine the RPGs was to compare 
the control strategies to the URP. Minnesota included all control 
measures believed to be reasonable and compared the resulting 
visibility improvement to the URP. Minnesota set the RPGs for Boundary 
Waters at 18.6 dv for the worst 20% of days and 6.4 dv for the best 20% 
of days in 2018. This annual 0.09 dv improvement rate would lead to 
achieving natural conditions on the worst 20% of days in 2093. The 2018 
RPG for Boundary Waters provides less improvement than the linear 
progress benchmark of 17.9 dv. Minnesota determined that the RPGs for 
Voyageurs are 18.9 dv for the worst 20% of days and 7.1 dv for the best 
20% of days in 2018. Projecting this 0.04 dv per year improvement into 
the future yields Voyageurs reaching natural conditions on the worst 
20% of days in 2177. As was the case for Boundary Waters, the 2018 RPG 
for Voyageurs provides less improvement than the linear progress 
benchmark of 17.8 dv. Minnesota considers the RPGs to be the result of 
the minimally acceptable visibility improvement. Minnesota detailed 
potential controls in Chapter 10 of its regional haze plan.
    Minnesota consulted with other states to determine which Class I 
areas are impaired by emissions from its sources. The consultation also 
allowed Minnesota to determine that in addition to contributions from 
its own sources, emissions from sources in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, 
Missouri, and North Dakota contribute to visibility impairment at 
Minnesota's Class I areas, Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. Minnesota 
identified the contributing states from MPRO's 2018 PSAT analysis. 
Other analyses from CENRAP and MRPO support the contribution 
determination. The pollutants and sources affecting Boundary Waters and 
Voyageurs are detailed in Chapter 10 of the Minnesota regional haze 
plan.
    Minnesota consulted with the FLMs during the development of its 
regional haze plan. The FLMs participated in CENRAP and on Northern 
Class I areas group calls, which allowed for FLM comment about 
technical issues and control strategies. Minnesota also consulted 
directly with the FLMs during plan development about its visibility 
impairment at Class I areas assessment, setting the RPGs, and the 
development of strategies to address visibility impairment.
    The FLMs participated at stakeholder meetings in January and May 
2007. Consultation with the FLMs continued as Minnesota prepared its 
BART determinations. Further consultation occurred in the summer of 
2007 while Minnesota cultivated a strategy to address visibility 
impairment resulting from emission sources in close proximity to the 
Class I areas. A draft of the regional haze plan was discussed at a 
September 20 and 21, 2007, meeting at Voyageurs. Minnesota sent the 
FLMs its regional haze plan on February 4, 2008. The public hearing on 
the regional haze plan was held on April 10, 2008. Thus, the state met 
the provisions of the RHR to provide the FLMs at least 60 days to 
review the plan prior to the public hearing. Minnesota will continue to 
consult with the FLMs on regional haze in the future.
    Minnesota actively participated in CENRAP meetings and conference 
calls. Minnesota also participated in some MRPO meetings and conference 
calls even though it is not a MRPO member. Beyond the technical 
analyses produced by the RPOs, Minnesota was able to consult with 
states and tribes throughout the region because of its RPO 
participation. Minnesota and Michigan coordinated the Northern Class I 
areas conference calls, which allowed the states to consult with the 
states contributing to visibility impairment at Boundary Waters, 
Voyageurs, and two Class I areas in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and North Dakota participated on the 
Northern Class I areas calls and thus, consulted with Minnesota. 
Michigan and Minnesota also consulted with each other. The Northern 
Class I areas consultation group also included a number of other 
governmental entities. Participating tribes included the Leech Lake 
Band of Ojibwe, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Band of Lake 
Superior Chippewa, Grand Portage Band

[[Page 3688]]

of Chippewa, Upper Sioux, Lower Sioux, and Huron Potawatomi. EPA, 
National Park Service, and Forest Service also participated in the 
consultation calls along the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The 
Northern Class I areas consultation group began in 2004 by working on 
air quality planning. Later the group discussed the SIP requirements of 
the regional haze program including sharing technical information on 
regular conference calls from July 2006 to February 2008. In September 
2007, Minnesota sent a letter to the states participating in the 
Northern Class I areas group as these states contribute to visibility 
impairment in Boundary Waters or Voyageurs. This letter formally 
acknowledged the consultation occurring in the group. Details of 
consultations including the Northern Class I areas process are included 
in Chapter 3 of the Minnesota regional haze plan.
    In addition to demonstrating the effect of emissions from other 
states on its Class I areas, Minnesota must also show that it will 
obtain its share of emission reductions from its sources. Thus, 
Minnesota's emission reduction obligations will allow the affected 
Class I areas to meet the RPGs. Minnesota performed technical analyses 
and modeling to analyze its contribution to visibility impairment. The 
state concluded that sulfates, nitrates, and organic carbon are the 
main contributors to visibility impairment. Minnesota thus decided to 
focus emission reduction efforts on SO2 and NOX, 
as it found the organic particles tend to come from natural sources 
such as wildfires in the Upper Midwest. Minnesota considered the 
emission reductions expected from existing, voluntary projects, and 
additional control measures that will improve visibility through 2018, 
when the first RPGs apply. The existing and voluntary control measures 
considered are similar to what the state considered in setting its 
RPGs. The additional controls measures were considered by the Northern 
Class I areas group and are reasonably likely to be implemented. 
Minnesota believes that the control measures it considered are 
reasonable and that it will achieve its share of emission reductions to 
attain the RPGs at affected Class I areas. This includes obtaining its 
share of emission reduction for Boundary Waters and Voyageurs in 
addition to Class I areas outside the state. EPA concludes that 
Minnesota is implementing a reasonable progress plan that includes the 
measures that meet the criteria as reasonable measures.

D. BART

    Minnesota conducted a BART analysis using the criteria in the BART 
Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y to identify all of the 
BART-eligible sources, assess whether the BART-eligible sources are 
subject to BART, and determine the BART controls. Minnesota initially 
identified 25 facilities with BART-eligible sources consisting of 11 
EGUs, 2 petroleum refineries, 6 taconite ore processing plants, 2 
sugar-processing facilities, 2 kraft pulp mills, an iron and steel 
mill, and a secondary metal production facility. Minnesota performed 
source-specific analyses with the CALPUFF model to determine which 
units are subject to BART. The state selected a 98th percentile 0.5 dv 
contribution threshold, consistent with EPA's suggested threshold, 
because no conglomeration of sources existed to warrant a more 
stringent threshold and because Minnesota concluded that 0.5 dv was an 
appropriate threshold for defining significant impact for BART 
purposes. Minnesota found that 11 facilities have units subject to 
BART. Five EGUs and six taconite ore processing facilities have subject 
to BART units. The EGUs with subject to BART units include Minnesota 
Power Taconite Harbor and Boswell facilities, Northshore Mining's 
Silver Bay, Rochester Public Utilities' Silver Lake, and Xcel Energy's 
Sherburne County (Sherco). The taconite ore processing facilities with 
subject to BART units are US Steel-Keewatin Taconite, Hibbing Taconite 
Company, US Steel-Minntac, United Taconite, ArcelorMittal, and 
Northshore Mining's Silver Bay.
    Next, Minnesota determined the appropriate BART emission limits 
using the five-step BART determination process. The taconite facilities 
are unique, as only eight facilities exist nationally with six in 
northern Minnesota and two in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The taconite 
plants are over 30 years old. The lack of new plants or retrofit 
projects gave Minnesota little knowledge of what emission limits are 
feasible and the cost effectiveness of potential control technologies, 
particularly for NOX control.
    Minnesota determined BART for NOX emissions from 
taconite pellet furnaces as employing good combustion practices with 
process modifications such as low-NOX burners, ported kilns, 
and fuel-efficient furnace design improvements. Minnesota required 
emission monitoring at the taconite facilities to learn what 
NOX emission rates can be achieved by these controls. Now, 
the state has used that data to set the NOX emission rates 
for its taconite facilities.
    The facility specific BART determinations resulted in Minnesota 
selecting the following NOX emission limits as satisfying 
BART. All NOX emission limits for the taconite facilities 
are based on a 30-day rolling average. The ArcelorMittal indurating 
furnace will use low-NOX burners and a furnace energy-
efficiency project to reduce emissions to 1018 lb/hr. For Hibbing 
Taconite, the furnace energy-efficiency projects completed in 2005 and 
2006 to produce a NOX BART limit of 447.4 lb/hr on the Line 
1 Pelletizing Furnace, 571.7 lb/hr on the Line 2 furnace, and 338.3 lb/
hr on the Line 3 furnace. Keewatin Taconite's Phase II Pelletizing 
Furnace will use fuel blending along with the existing controls to 
reduce NOX emissions to 12.35 tons per day. US Steel-Minntac 
will use fuel blending on its pellet furnace Line 3 to achieve an 
emissions rate of 7.85 tons per day. Minntac will use low-
NOX burners and fuel blending on Lines 4, 5, 6, and 7. The 
resulting NOX emission limits are 9.85 tons per day on Line 
4, 9.46 tons per day on Line 5, 7.14 tons per day on Line 6, and 5.51 
tons per day on Line 7. Northshore Silver Bay requires good combustion 
practices to limit NOX emissions from Furnace 11 and Furnace 
12 to 115.5 lb/hr for each furnace, while Process Boilers 1 
and 2 are limited to 0.17 lb/MMBTU. Finally, United Taconite 
is required to operate with good combustion practices to obtain a 
NOX emission limit of 4.5 tons per day on Line 1 and 10.1 
tons per day on Line 2.
    Minnesota determined that BART for PM emissions is complying with 
the taconite MACT for covered units. The taconite MACT establishes a 
PM10 emission limit of 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic 
foot for the pellet furnaces at all six taconite facilities. The 
taconite facilities already have PM controls to comply with the MACT 
standards. Northshore Silver Bay has wet-wall electrostatic 
precipitators, while the other five facilities operate wet scrubbers 
for PM control. Minnesota concluded that additional PM control would 
result in nominal visibility improvement, so complying with the 
taconite MACT represents BART control for PM.
    Minnesota determined that the wet scrubbers installed for PM 
control could be used to provide BART control of SO2 
emissions at most of the taconite facilities, too. As with 
NOX emission control, Minnesota found it necessary to 
monitor SO2 emissions to be able to select the appropriate 
SO2 emission limits for some of the facilities.

[[Page 3689]]

    Minnesota set the SO2 emission limit for the indurating 
furnace at ArcelorMittal at 0.165 lb/long ton (LT) of taconite pellets 
fired on a rolling 30-day average when combusting natural gas. The 
SO2 emission limits for Hibbing Taconite's Line 1, 2, and 3 
Pelletizing Furnaces each were set at 0.207 lb/LT as a 30-day rolling 
average. Minnesota determined that Keewatin Taconite is obtaining 
adequate SO2 control with its wet scrubbers. Thus, after 
reviewing the monitoring data, the State set an SO2 emission 
limit at 2.71 tons per day on a 30-day rolling average for the 
facility's Phase II Pelletizing Furnace. US Steel-Minntac operates five 
agglomerator lines--Lines 3 to 7. Minnesota set the SO2 BART 
emission limit for Line 3 at 1.28 tons per day, Line 4 at 1.10 tons per 
day, and Line 5 at 1.10 tons per day. Lines 6 and 7 operate with ported 
kilns and combust coal in making fluxed pellets, so Minnesota needed 
additional monitoring data to set the SO2 emission limits 
for Lines 6 and 7 at 1.47 and 1.61 tons per day respectively. The 
SO2 emission limits for US Steel-Minntac are for a rolling 
30-day average. For the indurating furnaces at Northshore Silver Bay, 
Minnesota set a BART limit for SO2 emissions at 0.0651 lb/LT 
on a 30-day rolling average. United Taconite has two indurating 
furnaces, Lines 1 and 2. Minnesota determined that optimizing the wet 
scrubber for SO2 removal is BART control for Line 1 and set 
the SO2 emission limit at 106.3 tons as a 30-day rolling 
sum. Minnesota determined the SO2 emission limit for Line 2 
is 197 tons as a 30-day rolling sum. United Taconite can meet the BART 
emission limit by either modifying its fuel blends, through operation 
of additional control equipment, or a combination of additional control 
with a lower sulfur fuel blend. Line 2 currently uses a blend of coal, 
petroleum coke, and natural gas. The BART analysis showed the 
installation and operation of a polishing scrubber as a viable BART 
control.
    Minnesota has provided some of the preceding BART emission limits 
on January 5, 2012 in proposed Administrative Orders. EPA cannot 
approve BART emission limits that are not federally enforceable. Thus, 
EPA cannot approve all of Minnesota's BART emission limits until the 
limits are final in an enforceable form. Nevertheless, Minnesota has 
requested that EPA conduct ``parallel processing,'' in which EPA 
proposes the action it would take were the State to adopt its draft 
administrative orders in final form. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 
that, provided Minnesota submits all of its BART emission limits in 
final Administrative Orders by the time EPA conducts final rulemaking, 
EPA will approve these administrative orders as satisfying BART for 
these sources.
    Minnesota initially did not perform BART determinations for the 
five subject to BART EGUs. This was because Minnesota was in the CAIR 
region and the state planned to meet its BART obligations through its 
participation in CAIR. CAIR was expected to control NOX and 
SO2 emissions from power plants, so Minnesota assessed the 
visibility impairment from PM for the subject to BART EGUs. Minnesota 
modeled each EGU and found the visibility impairment to be minor with 
the maximum impact of 0.16 dv from Northshore Silver Bay. Minnesota did 
not set PM emission limits for BART given this minor impact on 
visibility.
    Minnesota prepared BART determinations for NOX and 
SO2 emission control from its subject EGUs after CAIR was 
suspended for Minnesota. The BART determinations for the five subject 
to BART EGUs were included in the December 30, 2009, submission.
    EPA has analyzed the benefits of the Transport Rule in relation to 
the benefits of BART on EGUs that are subject to the Transport Rule. On 
December 30, 2011 (76 FR 82219), EPA proposed a rule finding that the 
Transport Rule is more beneficial in mitigating visibility impairment 
than application of BART to the affected EGUs on a source-specific 
basis. If the proposal is finalized, the Transport Rule may be 
considered to satisfy the requirement for BART for EGUs in Minnesota 
for SO2 and NOX. Minnesota requested on January 
5, 2012 to use Transport Rule participation to satisfy BART for its 
EGUs. As set forth in the proposed rule, Transport Rule region states 
are able to use participation in the Transport Rule program as an 
alternative to implementing source specific BART on each subject EGU. 
EPA proposes to approve Minnesota's reliance on the already promulgated 
Transport Rule FIP for EGU sources in Minnesota as an alternative to 
BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing that if EPA finalizes the rule finding that the Transport 
Rule satisfies the BART requirement for EGUs for SO2 and 
NOX in Minnesota and elsewhere, then the combination of the 
Minnesota submission including BART for its taconite facilities and the 
Transport Rule will satisfy applicable requirements for BART.
    A RAVI petition was submitted to the FLMs on September 3, 2009. The 
US Department of Interior certified that a portion of the visibility 
impairment in Isle Royale National Park and Voyageurs National Park are 
caused by emissions from Sherco. Interior certified the petition on 
October 21, 2009. The RAVI rules at 40 CFR 51.302(c) require the 
determination of emission limits representing BART for certified 
facilities. A BART determination under the RAVI is similar to, but 
independent from the BART determination made under the RHR. EPA views 
Minnesota's submittal as addressing regional haze as regulated under 40 
CFR 51.308 and not RAVI as regulated under 40 CFR 51.302 to 51.306. 
Therefore, this proposed rule only addresses satisfaction of regional 
haze requirements and does not address whether Minnesota's plan 
addresses requirements that apply as a result of the certification of 
Sherco as a RAVI source. EPA will act on RAVI BART in a separate 
notice.

E. LTS

    Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states' 
regional haze programs must include a LTS for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. Section 
51.308(d)(3) requires that Minnesota consult with the affected states 
in order to develop a coordinated emission management strategy. 
Minnesota must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all 
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the affected Class I areas. This includes 
Boundary Waters, Voyageurs, and Class I areas in other states that are 
affected by Minnesota sources. As described in section III.E., the LTS 
is the compilation of all control measures Minnesota will use to meet 
applicable RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions 
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to 
achieve the RPGs for all affected Class I areas.
    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR identifies seven factors that a 
state must consider in developing its LTS: (A) Emission reductions due 
to ongoing programs, (B) measures to mitigate impact from construction, 
(C) emission limits to achieve the RPG, (D) replacement and retirement 
of sources, (E) smoke management techniques, (F) federally enforceable 
emission limits and control measures, and (G) the net effect on 
visibility due to projected emission changes over the LTS period. 
Minnesota considered the seven factors in developing its LTS.
    Minnesota considered these ongoing and expected programs in 
developing its LTS: CAIR; voluntary EGU projects due to Minnesota 
statue 216B.1692; BART;

[[Page 3690]]

Tier II mobile source standards; heavy-duty diesel engine standards; 
low sulfur fuel; non-road mobile source control programs; and measures 
taken to attain the NAAQS.
    When Minnesota's participation in the CAIR program was suspended, 
Minnesota began a process of working with its BART-eligible EGU sources 
to make BART determinations and put in place BART emission limits in 
the form of source-specific permits, taking into consideration the 
emission control projects that these sources had initiated in 
anticipation of being subject to CAIR and voluntary emission reduction 
projects that had been encouraged by Minnesota's 216B.1692 statute that 
provides rate recovery for investments in pollution control. After EPA 
promulgated the Transport Rule and made known its plans to propose a 
rule that would allow Minnesota to rely on the Transport Rule to 
satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and NOX for 
its EGUs, Minnesota changed course and is now requesting EPA approval 
for such reliance, as stated above, rather than seeking EPA approval of 
its source-specific SO2 and NOX emission limits 
as BART for BART-eligible EGUs. Nevertheless, Minnesota expects 
reductions from Minnesota Power--Boswell, Minnesota Power--Laskin, 
Minnesota Power--Taconite Harbor, Ottertail Power--Hoot Lake, Rochester 
Public Utilities--Silver Lake, Xcel Energy--Allen S. King, Xcel 
Energy--High Bridge, Xcel Energy--Riverside, Xcel Energy--Sherburne 
County because permits requiring emission reductions have been issued 
for these sources as a result of either the BART determination process 
or the voluntary emission reduction program. These reductions are part 
of Minnesota's LTS.
    Other states that contribute to visibility impairment at Boundary 
Waters and Voyageurs must also reduce emissions from their BART 
sources. Minnesota incorporated the expected emission reductions due to 
BART in other states into its modeling. Additional emission reductions 
are expected from federal programs and from contributing states to 
attain the PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. Minnesota is in attainment 
of these NAAQS.
    Minnesota has addressed the requirement to consider measures to 
mitigate the impacts of construction activities through the general and 
transportation conformity measures that are included in the Minnesota 
SIP. Minnesota also has Minnesota Rule 7011.0150 that requires measures 
to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne included in its 
SIP.
    The state is required to investigate if additional reasonable 
control strategies are available to help meet the visibility goal. As a 
result of its analysis of potential controls, Minnesota developed the 
Northeast Minnesota plan for emission reductions. The Northeastern 
portion of Minnesota contains the two Class I areas and a number of 
industrial sources. The sources include taconite facilities that mine 
and process a variety iron ore, which is an industry that is expected 
to expand in the future. The plan gives large sources in Carlton, Cook, 
Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties region-wide 
emission reduction targets for 2018. Large sources are point sources in 
the region that emitted more than 100 TPY of either SO2 or 
NOX in 2002, the base line year. A list of these large 
sources is in Chapter 10 of the Minnesota regional haze plan. Newer 
sources that have a potential to emit more than 100 TPY of either 
pollutant are also included in the Northeast Minnesota plan. Minnesota 
focused on the emissions it can control. Minnesota divided the light 
extinction at Voyageurs into the difference pollutants based on their 
contribution. The state then removed the influence of natural 
pollutants and those beyond its control. Minnesota determined that it 
needed to control SO2 and NOX in the region and 
that a 28% reduction is needed to meet the URP. Thus, the 2018 target 
was set at a 30% reduction in combined SO2 and 
NOX emission from Northeast Minnesota by 2018 with an 
intermediate target of a 20% reduction by 2012. The combined 
SO2 and NOX emissions were 95,562 TPY in 2002, so 
a 30% reduction makes the 2018 goal 66,894 TPY combined. Note that the 
Northeast Minnesota plan does not mandate emission reductions, but sets 
a region-wide emissions goal for the state to consider when setting 
emission limits to regional sources.
    Minnesota also included requirements in the Administrative Orders 
for the taconite facilities to demonstrate attainment for recently 
enacted NAAQS for SO2 and NOX. Each facility must 
provide Minnesota with modeling demonstrating compliance with the one-
hour SO2 and NOX standards, the emission limits 
that will result in compliance, the controls or work practices needed 
to meet the emission limits, and an implementation schedule. The 
taconite facilities are to comply with the emission limits by June 30, 
2017. Minnesota expects the requirements of the taconite facilities to 
result in indentifying emission control technologies that work well on 
their facilities.
    The visibility impacts of new major sources will be mitigated using 
the existing New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) programs. The PSD program requires sources to 
install stringent emission controls. New and modified sources need to 
consider the potential affect on visibility in Class I areas under the 
NSR and PSD programs. The region-wide emission targets in the Northeast 
Minnesota plan will aid the state in considering visibility impairment.
    Minnesota followed the requirement to consider source retirement 
and replacement schedules in developing the RPGs for its Class I areas. 
Minnesota has also developed a Smoke Management Plan that EPA certified 
October 27, 2004. The Minnesota Smoke Management Plan allows the state 
to meet the obligation to consider smoke management during the LTS 
development. Agricultural and silvicultural burning under the Minnesota 
Smoke Management Plan will limit the affects of the smoke on air 
quality including on visibility. A properly managed fire under the 
right meteorological conditions will help to protect public safety and 
will prevent deterioration of air quality.
    Minnesota must also make sure that the emission limits and control 
measures it is using to meet the RPGs are federally enforceable. 
Minnesota included its state rules in the regional haze plan. It also 
included Administrative Orders and permits. Other rules that Minnesota 
is relying on are already approved into the Minnesota SIP. EPA believes 
that control measures and emission limits will be federally enforceable 
upon final approval of the Minnesota regional haze plan.

F. Monitoring Strategy

    The RHR requires a monitoring strategy for measuring, speciation, 
and reporting on visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I areas in the state. Minnesota participates in the 
IMPROVE network. IMPROVE monitors operate in both Boundary Waters and 
Voyageurs. There are also IMPROVE protocol sites at Blue Mounds and 
Great River Bluffs in the southern portion of Minnesota. IMPROVE 
protocol sites follow the same monitoring protocol as IMPROVE site, but 
located outside mandatory Class I areas. Minnesota commits to reporting 
visibility data annually for its two Class I area. There are 10 IMPROVE 
sites and 15 IMPROVE protocol sites within the CENRAP region.
    Minnesota also operates a monitoring network that provides data to 
analyze air quality problems including regional

[[Page 3691]]

haze. The monitoring network includes Federal Reference Method, 
continuous, and speciation monitors. The speciation monitors that 
gather data on fine particulate composition includes the IMPROVE 
monitors along with two additional speciation sites in Minneapolis and 
Rochester. EPA finds that Minnesota's regional haze plan meets the 
monitoring requirements for the RHR and that Minnesota's network of 
monitoring sites is satisfactory to measure air quality in its Class I 
areas and assess its contribution to regional haze.

G. Comments

    Minnesota offered the public an opportunity to comment on its 
proposed regional haze plan. Minnesota gave notice of a comment period 
on February 25, 2008, that lasted until May 16, 2008. Minnesota held at 
public meeting on April 10, 2008. An addition comment period was given 
from July 20, 2009, to September 3, 2009 for revised portions of the 
plan.
    Minnesota included the original comment letters in its plan. The 
state also provided it responses to the comments. Minnesota made 
revisions to its proposed plans following the initial comment period. 
The revised portions of the plan included source-specific BART for EGUs 
(an element that Minnesota has now indicated that it will replace with 
reliance on the Transport Rule as an EPA-approved alternative to EGU 
BART), BART for taconite facilities, and its LTS. Minnesota provided 
the second comment period to receive public comment on the revised 
plan. Minnesota is taking public comment from December 19, 2011 to 
February 3, 2012. Minnesota will also take public comment at the March 
27, 2012 Citizens' Board meeting. Minnesota has satisfied the 
requirements from 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V to provide evidence that 
it gave public notice, took comment, and that it compiled and responded 
to comments.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing action on a regional haze plan that Minnesota 
submitted on December 30, 2009, and supplemented on January 5, 2012. 
EPA is proposing to approve Minnesota's State Implementation Plan 
addressing regional haze for the first implementation period, provided 
it adopts and submits administrative orders consistent with its recent 
proposal of administrative orders. Full approval of the BART emission 
limits for the five EGUs is contingent on EPA's finalization of the 
rule, proposed on December 30, 2011, finding that the Transport Rule 
provides greater visibility improvement that implementing BART.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-1519 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P