[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82219-82234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33586]



[[Page 82219]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729; FRL-9614-7]
RIN 2060-AR05


Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to 
Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 
Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation 
Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to rules that pertain to the 
regional haze program. In this action, the EPA is proposing that the 
trading program in the recently promulgated Transport Rule, also known 
as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, achieves greater reasonable 
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility 
conditions in Class I areas than source-specific Best Available 
Retrofit Technology (BART) in those states covered by the Transport 
Rule. In this action, the EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval 
of the regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that have been 
submitted by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, 
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
South Carolina and Texas. These states relied on requirements of the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy certain regional haze 
requirements. To address deficiencies in all of the CAIR-dependent 
regional haze SIPs, in this action, the EPA is proposing Federal 
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to replace reliance on the CAIR 
requirements in these SIPs with reliance on the Transport Rule as an 
alternative to BART. States are encouraged, at any time, to submit a 
revision to their regional haze SIP incorporating the requirements of 
the Transport Rule at which time we will withdraw the FIP being 
proposed in this action.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 13, 
2012.
    Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held January 17, 2012. 
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on 
the comment period and the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
     Email: [email protected]. Attention Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Please include a total of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue Northwest, Room 3334, 
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. 
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-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729. The 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 the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not 
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use 
of special characters, avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any 
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public 
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
    Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held on January 17, 
2012, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1st Floor, Building 
C, Room C111C, 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709. The public hearing will start at 10 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. or 
until the last registered speaker has spoken. Because this hearing is 
being held at U.S. government facilities, everyone planning to attend 
the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to 
the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In 
addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal 
belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be 
required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large 
signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used inside 
the classroom and outside of the building, and demonstrations will not 
be allowed on federal property for security reasons.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information on this 
document, contact Ms. Martha Keating, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C539-04, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-9407; fax number: (919) 
541-0824; email address: [email protected].
    To register to speak at the hearing or attend the hearing on this 
document, contact Ms. Pamela Long, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C504-01, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0641; fax number: (919) 
541-5509; email address: [email protected].

[[Page 82220]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This proposed action does not directly regulate emission sources. 
It will affect state and local air pollution control agencies located 
within the geographic areas covered by the Transport Rule \1\ and whose 
regional haze state implementation plan relied on CAIR \2\ as an 
alternative to BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or Nitrogen 
Oxide (NOX)for electric generating units (EGUs) subject to 
BART requirements. Some of the EGUs located in such geographic areas 
may also be affected by the FIPs that may result from final rulemaking 
on this proposed action in that the final rule would allow states the 
option of not requiring them to meet source-specific BART emission 
limits to which they otherwise could be subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August 
8, 2011).
    \2\ See Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 
Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain 
Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule, 70 FR 
25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These sources are in the following groups:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Industry group                SIC \a\       NAICS \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Services..........................      492     221111, 221112,
                                                         221113, 221119,
                                                          221121, 221122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD 
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM 
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed to be CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this notice will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html 
under ``Recent Actions.''

D. What information should I know about a public hearing?

    The hearing will be held on January 17, 2012, at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1st Floor, Building C, Room C111C, 109 
T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The public 
hearing will start at 10 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. or until the last 
registered speaker has spoken. Because this hearing is being held at 
U.S. government facilities, everyone planning to attend the hearing 
should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security 
staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In addition, you 
will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you 
bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to 
return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be 
allowed in the building, cameras may only be used inside the classroom 
and outside of the building, and demonstrations will not be allowed on 
federal property for security reasons. To register to speak at the 
hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641 
before 5 p.m. on January 13, 2012. For updates and additional 
information on a public hearing, please check the EPA's Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/new.html under ``recent actions.''

E. How is this notice organized?

    The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. What information should I know about a public hearing?
    E. How is this notice organized?
II. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for the EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Addressing Regional Haze
    C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART
    1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility Progress of an Alternative 
Program to BART
    2. What is the Relationship between BART and CAIR?
    3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for State Regional Haze 
Implementation Plans
    4. The Transport Rule and Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plans
IV. Proposed Determination That the Transport Rule Is an Approvable 
Alternative to BART
    A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test
    B. Identification of Affected Class I Areas
    C. Scenarios Examined
    D. Emission Projections
    E. Air Quality Modeling Results
    F. Proposed Amendment to the Regional Haze Rule
V. Proposed Limited Disapproval of Certain States' Regional Haze 
SIPs
VI. Proposed FIPs
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

[[Page 82221]]

II. What action is the EPA proposing to take?

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to find that the trading 
programs in the Transport Rule \3\ achieve greater reasonable progress 
towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in 
mandatory Class I federal areas than source-specific BART in the states 
in which the Transport Rule applies. Specifically, we are proposing 
that the trading programs set out in the Transport Rule meet the 
requirements of an alternative program as prescribed in the Regional 
Haze Rule (RHR) at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) and are proposing to revise the 
regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) accordingly to allow 
states to substitute participation in the trading programs under the 
Transport Rule for source-specific BART. In addition, we are also 
proposing to find that any approved SIPs revising or adopting the 
Transport Rule trading programs, which must control emissions at least 
as stringently as the Transport Rule FIPs, will also meet the 
requirements for an alternative to BART for EGUs for the pollutants 
which the Transport Rule limits in that state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 76 FR 48208 (August 
8, 2011), and Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, Kansas, 
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin To Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Ozone finalized on December 15, 2011 for more details. 
For purposes of this proposed rule, the Transport Rule includes all 
of the states (28) included in the final Transport Rule and the 
supplemental rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are also proposing a limited disapproval of the 
regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by Alabama, Florida, 
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas. These 
states, fully consistent with the EPA's regulations at the time, relied 
on CAIR requirements to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals.\4\ CAIR and the CAIR FIP 
requirements, however, will only remain in force to address emissions 
through the 2011 control period and thus CAIR cannot be relied upon in 
a SIP as a substitute for BART or as part of a long-term control 
strategy. The EPA has already proposed limited disapproval of certain 
other state regional haze SIPs that relied on CAIR.\5\ We plan to take 
final action on both groups of SIPs when this action is finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The states for which we are proposing limited disapproval in 
this action are those that both relied on CAIR to satisfy BART 
requirements and are now covered by the requirements of the 
Transport Rule, for which we have not already made such a proposal.
    \5\ The states for which the EPA has previously proposed limited 
disapproval of regional haze SIPs because of reliance on CAIR are 
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action we are also proposing FIPs for all the states for 
which we have previously proposed limited disapproval and for all the 
states for which we are proposing a limited disapproval of their 
regional haze SIP in this action due to the change in status of CAIR. 
Regional haze SIPs were due in December 2007. For a number of the 
states identified above, we made a finding on January 15, 2009, that 
the states had failed to timely submit a regional haze SIP. Most of 
these states have subsequently submitted SIPs, but we have not yet 
acted on them. Under the CAA, the EPA is required to promulgate a FIP 
within 2 years after finding that a state has failed to make a required 
submission or after disapproving a SIP in whole or in part, unless the 
state first adopts and we have fully approved a SIP. CAA Sec.  
110(c)(1). Given these CAA requirements and the fact that the Transport 
Rule has now replaced CAIR, we consider it appropriate at this time to 
issue FIPs to address the deficiencies in the regional haze SIPs 
related to the termination of CAIR. Our adoption of these FIPs at this 
time avoids the near-term need for additional administrative steps on 
the part of these states. The proposed regional haze FIPs also allow 
states the option of a less costly approach to meeting the regional 
haze requirements of the CAA since the proposed FIPs rely on the 
trading program already promulgated in the Transport Rule. We encourage 
states, at any time, to submit a revision to their regional haze SIP 
incorporating the requirements of the Transport Rule at which time we 
will withdraw the FIP we are proposing in this action. States may also 
include in such a SIP revision provisions applicable to specific EGU 
BART sources that they anticipate (or find after implementation of the 
Transport Rule) to continue to cause visibility impairment that the 
state wishes to reduce. However, we anticipate that some states may 
choose to remain subject to the proposed FIP and not submit a SIP 
revision. Our proposed finding that the Transport Rule makes greater 
reasonable progress than BART for EGUs in these states will hold true 
regardless of whether a state chooses to submit a SIP revision under 
subpart 52.38 and 52.39 or remain subject to a FIP.
    We are not proposing to disapprove the reasonable progress targets 
for 2018 that are an element of the long-term strategies for these 
states. The affected states originally set the reasonable progress 
goals in their SIPs based on the emission reductions expected to be 
achieved by CAIR, along with other emission reductions qualified for 
that purpose. The overall EGU emission reductions from the Transport 
Rule are larger than the EGU reductions achieved by CAIR and the 
substitution of the Transport Rule for CAIR does not weaken any 
affected state's long-term strategy. We intend to act on the reasonable 
progress goals and long-term strategies (including the Transport Rule) 
and other requirements of the RHR (monitoring, consultation with 
federal land managers, etc.) for each state in an individual notice at 
or after the time of the final rule for this action.

III. What is the background for the 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., SO2, 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 and alters 
the color of scenes, and reduces the distance at which one can see a 
scene. 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 \6\ in many mandatory Class 
I federal areas \7\ in the

[[Page 82222]]

western United States is about 60-100 miles, 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 20 miles, or about one-fifth of 
the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 
64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Visual range is the greatest distance at which a dark object 
can be viewed against the sky.
    \7\ 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 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Addressing Regional Haze

    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 which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
the 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''. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. The 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. The EPA promulgated the RHR to address regional haze 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 the EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. The requirement 
to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to 
submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze 
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
    Section 169A of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility 
conditions in Class I areas. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources. Specifically, section 
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to 
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress 
towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that 
certain categories of existing major stationary sources \8\ built 
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best 
Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. Under the 
RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such 
``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Alternative Measures In Lieu of BART

1. Criteria for Comparing Visibility Progress of an Alternative Program 
to BART
    Criteria for determining if an alternative measure achieves greater 
reasonable progress than source-specific BART are set out in the RHR at 
Sec.  51.308(e)(3). The ``better-than-BART'' test may be satisfied as 
follows: If the distribution of emissions is not substantially 
different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in 
greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed 
to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of 
emissions is significantly different, then states are directed to 
conduct an air quality modeling study to determine differences in 
visibility between BART and the alternative program for each impacted 
Class I area for the worst and best 20 percent of days.\9\ The two-
pronged visibility test would demonstrate ``greater reasonable 
progress'' under the alternative program if both of the following 
criteria are met:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ While the RHR directs the state to conduct the air quality 
modeling study, as described in section III.C.2, the EPA itself 
conducted such a study for CAIR and through a notice-and-comment 
rulemaking codified the conclusion that the stated criteria were met 
by adding specific provisions allowing the use of CAIR in lieu of 
source-specific BART.

--Visibility does not decline in any Class I area,\10\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As explained in section IV.A., the ``decline'' is relative 
to modeled future baseline visibility conditions in the absence of 
any BART or alternative program control requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by 
comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over 
all affected Class I areas.
    The EPA's authority to establish non-BART alternatives has been 
judicially challenged and upheld twice, firmly establishing that the 
CAA allows states to substitute other programs for BART where the 
alternative achieves greater progress. In the first case, the court 
affirmed our interpretation of CAA 169A(b)(2) as allowing for 
alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater 
reasonable progress than BART. Center for Energy and Economic 
Development v. EPA, 398 f.3d 653, 660 (DC Cir. 2005) (``CEED'') 
(finding reasonable the EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2) 
as requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress). In 
the second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC 
Cir. 2006), the court found EPA's two-pronged visibility test to be a 
``reasonable notion of reasonable progress'' and upheld our 
determination that states could rely on CAIR, as discussed below, as an 
alternative program to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-affected states.
2. What is the relationship between BART and CAIR?
    In May 2005, the EPA published CAIR, which required 28 states and 
the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and 
NOX that significantly contribute to, or interfere with 
maintenance of, the 1997 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. The CAIR 
established emission budgets for SO2 and NOX for 
states that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind 
states and required the significantly contributing states to submit SIP 
revisions that implemented these budgets. Because

[[Page 82223]]

such SIP revisions were already overdue, CAIR also promulgated FIPs for 
the affected states establishing a cap-and-trade program for EGUs with 
opt-in provisions for other sources. States had the flexibility to 
subsequently adopt SIP revisions mirroring CAIR requirements or 
otherwise providing emission reductions sufficient to address 
interference with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in other 
states. Many affected states adopted CAIR-mirroring SIPs, while others 
chose to remain under CAIR FIPs.
    As noted in Section III.C.1, the RHR allows states to implement an 
alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program 
has been demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the 
national visibility goal than would BART. The EPA made just such a 
demonstration for CAIR in revisions to the regional haze program made 
in 2005. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, we amended our 
regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP 
or states that remain subject to the CAIR 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).
    As a result of our determination that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, fully consistent with 
our regulations, designed their regional haze implementation plans to 
rely on the CAIR cap-and-trade program as an alternative to BART for 
EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX. These states also 
relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy for achieving 
their reasonable progress goals.
3. Remand of CAIR and Implications for State Regional Haze 
Implementation Plans
    Following our determination in 2005 that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART'' and the upholding of this determination by the court in 2006, 
the DC Circuit Court ruled on several petitions for review challenging 
CAIR on various grounds. As a result of this litigation, the DC Circuit 
Court remanded CAIR to the EPA, but later decided not to vacate the 
rule.\11\ The court thereby left CAIR and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place 
in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by 
CAIR'' until the EPA replaced it with a rule consistent with the 
court's opinion. 550 F.3d at 1178. The EPA replaced CAIR with the 
Transport Rule on August 8, 2011.\12\ The Transport Rule will take 
effect on January 1, 2012. The CAIR and the CAIR FIPs will remain in 
place to address emissions through the end of the 2011 control periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; modified by 550 
F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008).
    \12\ See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 
8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many states relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for 
SO2 and NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed under 
the BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). These states also relied on 
the improvement in visibility expected to result from controls planned 
or already installed on sources in order to meet CAIR provisions in 
developing their long-term visibility strategy. In addition, many 
states relied upon their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs for their 
states as legal justification for these planned controls and 
consequently did not include separate enforceable measures in their 
long-term strategies (a required element of a regional haze SIP 
submission) to ensure these EGU reductions. These states also submitted 
demonstrations showing that no additional controls on EGUs beyond CAIR 
would be reasonable for the first 10-year implementation period of the 
regional haze program.
    Since states in the CAIR-affected region have based a number of 
required elements of their regional haze programs on CAIR, which has 
now been replaced by the Transport Rule, we cannot fully approve 
regional haze SIP revisions that have relied on CAIR for emission 
reduction measures. To date, we have proposed limited disapprovals for 
some states whose regional haze SIP revisions rely on CAIR (for 
example, for the State of Tennessee, 76 FR 33662 (June 9, 2011)). We 
intend to take final action on those proposed limited disapprovals of 
SIPs when this action is finalized. However, there are other states 
whose regional haze SIP relied on CAIR but for which the EPA has not 
yet proposed to take action. In this action we are proposing a limited 
disapproval of the regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by 
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, 
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina and Texas. These states relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy 
both the BART requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy 
sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals, and 
they are now covered by the Transport Rule requirements.
4. The Transport Rule and Regional Haze State Implementation Plans
    The Transport Rule sunsets CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for control 
periods in 2012 and beyond. The Transport Rule requires 28 states in 
the eastern half of the United States to significantly improve air 
quality by reducing EGU SO2 and NOX emissions 
that cross state lines and contribute to ground-level ozone and/or fine 
particle pollution in other states. The rule allows air-quality-assured 
allowance trading among covered sources, utilizing an allowance market 
infrastructure modeled after existing allowance trading programs. The 
Transport Rule allows sources to trade emissions allowances with other 
sources in the same or different states, while firmly constraining any 
emissions shifting that may occur by establishing an emission ceiling 
for each state.
    In developing the Transport Rule, we did not conduct any technical 
analysis to determine whether compliance with the Transport Rule would 
satisfy regional haze BART-related requirements. Accordingly, in the 
final Transport Rule, the EPA did not make a determination or establish 
any presumption that compliance with the Transport Rule would satisfy 
BART-related requirements for EGUs. We have now completed such a 
technical analysis and it is the basis of this action in which we are 
proposing to find that in affected mandatory Class I federal areas, the 
Transport Rule achieves greater reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions than source-
specific BART. Specifically, we are proposing that participation by 
EGUs in the Transport Rule trading program set out in 40 CFR part 97 
subparts AAAAA-DDDDD meets the requirements of an alternative program 
as prescribed in the RHR at Sec.  51.308(e)(3), and we are proposing to 
revise the regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) 
accordingly. The EPA invites comments on these proposed revisions.
    The proposed determination in this action that participation in the 
Transport Rule trading program may substitute for BART applies only to 
EGUs in the states in the Transport Rule region and only to the 
pollutants subject to the requirements of the Transport Rule (i.e., 
SO2 and/or NOX). BART for emissions of other 
visibility impairing pollutants (e.g., primary PM2.5, 
NH3 or VOC) must still be evaluated according to the RHR 
Guidelines. Non-EGU sources also remain subject to requirements of the 
RHR.

[[Page 82224]]

    Under the proposed revision to this section, a state in the 
Transport Rule region whose EGUs are subject to the requirements of the 
Transport Rule trading program only for annual NOX or ozone 
season NOX would be allowed to rely on our proposed 
determination that the Transport Rule makes greater reasonable progress 
than source-specific BART for NOX. Such a state would still 
need to address BART for SO2 and other visibility impairing 
pollutants.
    In this action we are also proposing a FIP for those Transport Rule 
states for which we already have or now are proposing a limited 
disapproval due to the termination of CAIR. For these states, the 
proposed FIP would replace reliance on the CAIR requirements with 
reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for 
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs and as a long-
term strategy measure.
    We are proposing to leave unchanged the final sentence of section 
51.308(e)(4) in the regional haze regulations. This language allows a 
state to address BART, when it is required based on reasonable 
attribution of visibility impairment at a Class I area to a particular 
source by a federal land management agency, by including a geographic 
enhancement in its SIP.\13\ For example, a geographic enhancement in 
the form of adjusted allocations at a BART-subject source might take 
the place of source-specific emission rate limits. Use of a geographic 
enhancement in the context of reasonable attribution of visibility 
impairment at a Class I area will be addressed in separate EPA or state 
actions on a case-by-case basis in accordance with 40 CFR 51.302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under section 51.302, the affected federal land manager may 
certify that there exists reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment (RAVI) in a mandatory Class I federal area. This 
certification is an extraordinary measure to address localized 
impacts due to a specific source or sources. The EPA and federal 
land managers will work together regarding the review of SIPs (or 
the development of FIPs) to respond to a RAVI certification when one 
is made, within the better-than-BART construct for regional haze and 
in accordance with section 51.302 and section 51.308(e)(4). States 
may also include in their SIPs provisions applicable to a specific 
source even if no federal land management agency has made such a 
reasonable attribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Determination That the Transport Rule Is an Approvable 
Alternative to BART

A. Application of the Two-Pronged Test

    As described in section III.C.1, the two-pronged test for 
determining if an alternative program achieves greater reasonable 
progress than source-specific BART is set out in the RHR at 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(3). The underlying purpose of both prongs of the test is to 
assess whether visibility conditions at Class I areas would be better 
with the alternative program in place than they would without it. The 
first prong ensures that the alternative program will not cause a 
decline in visibility at any affected Class I area. It addresses the 
possibility that the alternative program might cause local changes in 
emissions that could result in localized visibility degradation. The 
second prong ensures that the program results in improvements in 
average visibility across all affected Class I areas as compared to 
adopting source-specific BART. Together, these tests ensure that the 
alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress than would 
source-specific BART.
    In the case of the Transport Rule as an alternative to source-
specific BART, the logical reference point for the first prong is 
visibility conditions as they are expected to be at the time the 
Transport Rule is implemented but in the absence of BART. This ensures 
that the predicted visibility differences are due to the Transport Rule 
alternative and not to other extrinsic factors. For example, if large 
increases in wildfires are expected, due to accumulation of fuel from 
past forest management practices, a degradation of visibility from 
current conditions may be expected. It would be irrational to 
disapprove an alternative program as not meeting the first prong of the 
test because of a modeled degradation from current conditions, where 
that degradation is actually anticipated because of smoke from 
wildfires--sources which are not subject to the CAA BART provisions. By 
comparing the Transport Rule alternative to future projected baseline 
conditions without any BART program, such extrinsic variables are 
accounted for. The future projected baseline also accounts for other 
non-Transport Rule constraints on EGU emissions including the Acid Rain 
Program, the NOX SIP Call, New Source Performance Standards, 
Title V permits, any state laws and consent order requiring emission 
reductions, and any other permanent and enforceable binding reduction 
commitments. We are thus able to ascertain (to the extent possible 
where future projections are concerned) whether visibility under the 
alternative would decline at any affected Class I area, all other 
things being equal. Therefore, in applying the first prong of the test 
to the Transport Rule, we used a future (2014) projected baseline.\14\ 
Similarly, in applying the second prong of the test, we assumed 
identical future conditions (the same as in the future 2014 baseline 
case) for non-EGU sources for both the source-specific BART scenario 
and the Transport Rule scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 2014 baseline modeling for this analysis is identical 
to the Transport Rule 2014 baseline. The 2014 baseline does not 
include the Transport Rule, BART, or CAIR control programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To satisfy each prong of the test, we examined visibility 
differences on both the worst and best 20 percent of days. Thus, under 
the first prong, visibility must not decline at any affected Class I 
area on either the best 20 percent or the worst 20 percent days as a 
result of implementing the Transport Rule. In addition, under the 
second prong, the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days should be 
considered in determining whether the Transport Rule produces greater 
average improvement than source-specific BART over all affected Class I 
areas.

B. Identification of Affected Class I Areas

    In applying the two-pronged test to the Transport Rule, we first 
identified the Class I areas in the 48 contiguous states with 
sufficiently complete monitoring data available to support the 
analysis.\15\ There were 140 such Class I areas represented by 96 
IMPROVE monitors; nine Class I areas were excluded that did not have 
sufficient historical ambient data from the IMPROVE monitoring program 
to support the technical analysis.\16\ After identifying these areas we 
then considered two possible approaches we could use to identify which 
of these areas are ``affected'' Class I areas in terms of the potential 
effect of the Transport Rule as an alternative control program to 
source-specific BART. In the first approach, we identified as affected 
Class I areas 60 mandatory Class I Federal areas represented by 46 
IMPROVE monitors located in 37 complete states and four partial states 
that are contained in the eastern portion

[[Page 82225]]

of the Transport Rule modeling domain.\17\ The second approach we 
considered was a national approach in which visibility impacts on 140 
Class I areas across the 48 contiguous states were evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The modeling used a 2005 base case projected to a 2014 
future year. The modeling days for the analysis were based on the 
observed 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days from 2005 at each 
IMPROVE site. Therefore, the analysis could not be completed for 
IMPROVE sites that did not have complete ambient data for 2005.
    \16\ In the Regional Haze Program, there are 110 ambient 
monitoring sites which represent 155 Class I areas. Therefore, some 
monitors represent air quality at more than one Class I area. See 
Guidance for Tracking Progress under the Regional Haze Rule, U.S. 
EPA, EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, which is found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf. In our 
analysis we calculated visibility changes at each individual Class I 
area. Therefore, some IMPROVE monitors are counted more than once in 
the averaging of the visibility data. This does not affect the 
proposed finding that the Transport Rule is better than source-
specific BART.
    \17\ The ``eastern'' Transport Rule modeling grid used a 
horizontal resolution of 12 kilometers (km).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Transport Rule, the determination of states that contribute 
significantly to downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance focused on 
the 37 states that are fully contained in this eastern modeling domain. 
The eastern modeling domain also includes large parts of Montana, 
Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. In the Transport Rule, EPA did not 
determine that Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico or the six New 
England states were contributing to violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 
or the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, or interfering with 
maintenance in downwind states and therefore they are not included in 
the Transport Rule program.\18\ However, we included Class I areas 
located in these non-Transport Rule states and partial states in the 
first approach for identifying ``affected areas''. It is conceivable 
that because of proximity, emissions from the Transport Rule states 
could impact any of the Class I areas in the eastern Transport Rule 
modeling domain. Specifically, in this first approach for identifying 
``affected areas'' in the Transport Rule region, we examined impacts on 
27 Class I areas located within the Transport Rule states and 33 
additional Class I areas located in non-Transport Rule states but 
within the eastern Transport Rule modeling domain, for a total of 60 
Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Transport Rule determined that the six New England 
states did not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance in downwind states. The Transport Rule did not make a 
determination whether Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in 
neighboring states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The eastern Transport Rule modeling domain lies within a larger 
modeling domain which covers the lower 48 states and adjacent portions 
of Canada and Mexico. In the Transport Rule, the results obtained with 
this national domain were used to calculate boundary conditions for the 
eastern Transport Rule region. The EPA did not use the national domain 
to investigate interstate contributions to nonattainment or 
interference with maintenance, in part because the air quality model 
structure for the national domain is less suitable for that type of 
use.\19\ In the second approach to identifying which areas are 
``affected'' Class I areas, we used data from the larger domain to 
estimate potential visibility impacts on Class I areas located to the 
west of the Transport Rule modeling region boundary. The additional 80 
Class I areas under this national approach are in states or part of 
states that were not part of the eastern modeling domain for the 
Transport Rule, but were part of the western modeling domain.\20\ In 
this approach, the eastern domain 12 km modeling results were used to 
calculate visibility changes in the 60 eastern Class I areas and the 
national domain 36 km modeling results were used to calculate 
visibility changes in the 80 western Class I areas. Consideration of 
this national region would encompass the possibility that the Transport 
Rule might have the effect of increasing EGU emissions in the most 
western portion of the United States due to shifts in electricity 
generation or other market effects. In total, the national domain 
includes 140 Class I areas (including the 60 contained within the 
Transport Rule region).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The eastern modeling domain used a 12 km grid size, while 
the national modeling domain used a 36 km grid size. See Air Quality 
Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011, 
which is found at: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
    \20\ See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011, which is found at: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on whether the ``affected Class I areas'' should 
be considered to be the 60 Class I areas located in the Transport Rule 
eastern modeling domain, the larger set of 140 Class I areas in the 
larger national domain, or some other set. We note that given the 
modeling results presented in section VI.E, the choice between the 60 
Class I areas or the 140 Class I areas does not affect our proposed 
conclusion that both prongs of the two-prong test are met.

C. Scenarios Examined

    The Transport Rule requires 28 states in the eastern half of the 
United States to reduce EGU SO2 and NOX emissions 
that cross state lines and contribute to ground-level ozone and fine 
particle pollution in other states. BART, on the other hand, is 
applicable nationwide and covers 26 industrial categories, including 
EGUs, of a certain vintage. In our comparison, we sought to determine 
whether the Transport Rule cap-and-trade program for EGUs will achieve 
greater reasonable progress than would BART for EGUs only. Therefore, 
we examined two relevant control scenarios. The first control scenario 
examined SO2 and NOX emissions from all EGUs 
nationwide after the application of BART controls to all BART-eligible 
EGUs (``Nationwide BART''). In the second scenario, EGU SO2 
and NOX emissions reductions attributable to the Transport 
Rule were applied in the Transport Rule region and BART controls were 
applied to all BART-eligible EGUS outside the Transport Rule region 
(``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere''). The latter scenario reflects the 
fact that source-specific BART would remain a regional haze SIP element 
outside the Transport Rule region. In order to more accurately project 
the Transport Rule emissions, it is necessary to assume EGU BART 
controls outside the Transport Rule region to account for potential 
load and emission shifting among EGUs.
    For both the ``Nationwide BART'' scenario and the ``Transport Rule 
+ BART-elsewhere'' scenario, we modeled the presumptive EGU BART limits 
for SO2 and NOX emission rates as specified in 
the BART Guidelines (Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the 
Regional Haze Rule, 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005), unless an actual 
emission rate at a given unit with existing controls is lower. In the 
latter case, we modeled the lower emission rates. In addition, we 
modeled the impacts of BART using stringent assumptions regarding the 
EGUs (or specific units at EGUs) that would be subject to BART. 
Specifically, we assumed that all BART-eligible EGUs were actually 
subject to BART requirements. We also assumed that presumptive BART 
limits would be applied to much smaller units. In this analysis we 
assumed the threshold for BART-eligibility was 100 megawatts (MW) for 
SO2 and 25 MW for NOX and did not eliminate any 
sources based on their annual total emissions. (By comparison, the RHR 
BART Guidelines only apply presumptive limits to EGUs having a total 
generating capacity of 750 MW and exempt BART-eligible units with the 
potential to emit less than 40 tons per year of either SO2 
or NOX.)
    The RHR BART Guidelines specify presumptive SO2 BART 
limits for an EGU with an existing scrubber as 95 percent scrubber 
control efficiency or 0.15 pounds per million Btu (lbs/MMBtu). We used 
the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS), an EPA database of 
existing and planned-committed EGUs, to identify which BART-eligible 
units have existing scrubbers.\21\ The NEEDS also contains information 
on scrubber efficiency and emission rates. For scrubbed BART-

[[Page 82226]]

eligible units, we based our BART emission rate on a comparison of the 
emission rate listed for that unit in NEEDS to the presumptive 
SO2 emission rate. That is, if the unit has at least a 95 
percent efficient scrubber, the emission rate being achieved at that 
control efficiency was modeled for that unit even if the emission rate 
was higher than 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. Conversely, if an emission rate of 0.15 
lbs/MMBtu or lower is being achieved, we modeled that emission rate for 
the unit, even if the scrubber is less than 95 percent efficient. For 
BART-eligible units without existing scrubbers, we modeled an emission 
rate that reflected 95 percent control based on a new installation of a 
highly efficient scrubber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See The NEEDS User Guide: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/CSAPR/docs/Guide_to_NEEDSv410.pdf which is found 
at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RHR BART Guidelines specify presumptive limits for 
NOX based on coal type and boiler configuration. The BART 
guidelines also specify that existing NOX controls must be 
operated year round. For the source-specific ``Nationwide BART'' 
scenario and for the ``elsewhere'' EGUs in the ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' scenario, we assumed that any BART-subject unit with 
existing NOX controls in the future baseline case would 
retain at least those controls and would be required to operate them 
year round. If the existing NOX controls in the future 
baseline case did not meet the presumptive BART limits (with the 
modifications about applicability as described above), we assumed 
installation of post-combustion controls that would meet the BART 
guidelines with year round operation. In the ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' scenario, there are 5 states that are subject to the 
Transport Rule requirements during the ozone season only.\22\ For these 
states, NOX controls were assumed to operate only during 
ozone season as required by the Transport Rule. The RHR BART Guidelines 
also specify presumptive limits for NOX based on coal type 
and boiler configuration. Table 1 summarizes the NOX 
emission limits we applied to BART-eligible units of 25 MW or greater. 
For units firing a coal blend, which the BART Guidelines do not 
address, we calculated a weighted presumptive NOX limit 
based on the percentage of each coal type fired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ States subject to the Transport Rule requirements during 
the ozone season only are Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi 
and Florida.

                   Table 1--BART Presumptive NOX Limits by Boiler Configuration and Coal Type
                                                   [lbs/MMBtu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Bituminous       Subbituminous         Lignite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry bottom wall-fired..................................               0.39               0.23               0.29
Tangential-fired.......................................               0.28               0.15               0.17
Cell burners...........................................               0.40               0.45                [*]
Dry turbo-fired........................................               0.32               0.23                [*]
Wet bottom tangential-fired............................               0.62                [*]                [*]
Cyclone................................................               0.10               0.10               0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not applicable.

    Certain EGUs in the analysis were constrained by emission limits 
other than presumptive limits due to a proposed or final regional haze 
SIP, a proposed or final regional haze FIP, a final consent decree, or 
state rules. These units and their emission limits are detailed in the 
Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposed rule. (See Technical 
Support Document for Demonstration of the Transport Rule as a BART 
Alternative, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.)

D. Emission Projections

    To estimate emissions expected from the scenarios described in 
section IV.C, we used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM). The IPM is a 
multi-regional, dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the 
electric power sector. It is used extensively by the EPA to support 
regulatory activities. The IPM provides forecasts of least-cost 
capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control 
strategies for meeting electricity demand subject to environmental, 
transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. The IPM was used 
in this case to evaluate the emissions impacts of the described 
scenarios limiting the emissions of SO2 and NOX 
from EGUs. This analysis used the most recently updated IPM platform 
which is documented at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/.\23\ Table 2 
presents the annual emissions for each policy scenario as projected by 
the IPM. As shown by the numbers in the far right column, ``Transport 
Rule + BART-elsewhere'' achieved greater emission reductions nationwide 
\24\ for both pollutants than source-specific ``Nationwide BART'' 
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Extensive documentation of the IPM platform may be found at 
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/epa-ipm/transport.html.
    \24\ In the context of this action, when we refer to nationwide 
emissions or a nationwide analysis, we are referring to the 
contiguous 48 states.

                          Table 2--EGU SO2 and NOX Annual Emissions as Projected by IPM
                                         [In thousands of tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Additional
                                                                                                 reduction from
                                                                                                ``Transport Rule
                                                                                                    + BART-
                                        2014 Base Case   2014 ``Nationwide   2014 ``Transport     elsewhere''
                                        EGU emissions          BART''          Rule + BART-      (``Nationwide
                                                                               elsewhere''        BART'' minus
                                                                                                ``Transport Rule
                                                                                                    + BART-
                                                                                                  elsewhere'')
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide SO2......................              7,160              3,820              2,918                902
Nationwide NOX......................              1,946              1,798              1,756                 42
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82227]]

    The IPM projections of NOX and SO2 emissions 
from EGUs for the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' control scenario 
summarized on an annual basis in Table 2, which were used to arrive at 
the modeling results presented in section VI.E, are based on the state 
budgets prescribed in the final Transport Rule published on August 8, 
2011, and the supplemental proposal finalized on December 15, 2011.\25\ 
On October 14, 2011, the EPA issued a proposed notice that would 
increase NOX and SO2 budgets for certain states 
in accordance with revisions to certain unit-level input data. 76 FR 
63860. Even if these proposed increases to state budgets are finalized, 
emissions of both NOX and SO2 in the Transport 
Rule states in the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' control scenario 
will still be substantially below emissions in the ``Base Case'' 
scenario. Therefore, we believe that the modeling results in section 
VI.E comparing these two scenarios based on the emissions from the 
final Transport Rule, showing that the first prong of the better-than-
BART test is satisfied, are also sufficient for determining that the 
Transport Rule as modified by the proposed increases in the state 
budgets also would meet the first prong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate 
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone 76 FR 48208 (August 
8, 2011). The ozone season state budgets for the states affected by 
the supplemental proposal finalized on December 15, 2011, are 
included in the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' control 
scenario. (The ozone season budget for Kansas was not finalized on 
December 15, 2011.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, even if the proposed increases to state budgets are 
finalized, the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' control scenario is 
still projected to result in about 26,000 tons more NOX 
emission reductions than ``Nationwide BART'' and about 821,000 tons 
more SO2 emission reductions than ``Nationwide BART.'' We 
believe the changes in the emissions differences between these two 
scenarios that would result if the proposed increases in state budgets 
are finalized are unlikely to affect the determination of whether 
``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' provides greater visibility 
improvement than ``Nationwide BART'' averaged across all affected Class 
I areas, as assessed by the second prong of two-pronged test. A 
sensitivity analysis that examines the impact of the proposed state 
budget increases on visibility improvement is presented in Appendix C 
of the TSD. We request comment on this aspect of our proposed 
determination.

E. Air Quality Modeling Results

    To assess the air quality metrics that are part of the two-pronged 
test, we used the IPM emission projections summarized in Table 2 as 
inputs to an air quality model to determine the impact of ``Transport 
Rule + BART-elsewhere'' and ``Nationwide BART'' controls on visibility 
in the affected Class I areas. To project air quality impacts we used 
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension (CAMx) version 5.3. 
The air quality modeling analysis and related analyses to project 
visibility improvement are described in more detail in the TSD for the 
Transport Rule.\26\ The base year meteorology used in the CAMx modeling 
was 2005. The base year IMPROVE ambient monitoring data for the years 
2003-2007 were used to project visibility to 2014 and to compare the 
visibility improvements from the two control scenarios. The 2003-2007 
IMPROVE data were used because these are the 5 years of data which 
straddle the base 2005 modeling year. The post-processing calculations 
for visibility are consistent with the RHR tracking progress guidance 
\27\ and the regional haze air quality modeling guidance.\28\ The 
visibility projections for each Class I area are presented in the air 
quality modeling TSD.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document, U.S. EPA, June 2011, which is found at: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf.
    \27\ See Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule, U.S. EPA, EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, which is found at: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf.
    \28\ See Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 
PM2.5, and Regional Haze, U.S. EPA, EPA-454/B-07-002, 
April 2007, which is found at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf.
    \29\ See Technical Support Document for Demonstration of the 
Transport Rule as a BART Alternative, Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cornerstone of our modeling process was the 2014 ``Base Case'' 
modeling scenario, which contains emissions for 2014 based on predicted 
growth and existing emissions controls. We used model-predicted changes 
in visibility impairment along with the observed base year visibility 
values to estimate future visibility impairment at each Class I area. 
We applied the relative predicted change in visibility (expressed as a 
percent) from the model, due to emissions changes, to the base year 
visibility values to estimate future visibility. The projected 
visibility values were based on emissions changes between the 2005 base 
year inventory and the 2014 inventory. After we established the future 
year 2014 ``Base Case'' visibility values, we calculated estimated 
visibility improvements at each Class I area by modeling the 
``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' control strategy as well as the 
``Nationwide BART'' strategy in 2014.
    We did two separate analyses to assess the potential visibility 
impacts of ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' and ``Nationwide BART'' 
controls on 60 Class I areas in the Transport Rule region and on 140 
Class I areas in the contiguous 48 states (referred to as the national 
region). For both visibility scenarios we quantified the visibility 
impacts on the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst visibility days for 
the 2014 future-year base case, the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' 
scenario, and the ``Nationwide BART'' control scenario.
    Under the first prong of the test, visibility cannot degrade at any 
affected Class I area. To determine if ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' resulted in degradation of visibility at any affected Class 
I area, we compared the visibility impacts of ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' to base case 2014 visibility conditions. As described in 
detail in the TSD for this action, the ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' alternative passed this first prong in the Transport Rule 
region by not causing visibility degradation at any of the 60 affected 
Class I areas in the eastern Transport Rule modeling domain (i.e., when 
using the first approach to identifying affected areas), on either the 
20 percent best or the 20 percent worst days. In the national region 
(i.e., when using the second approach to identifying affected areas), 
the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' alternative was also predicted 
to not cause visibility degradation at any affected Class I area on 
either the 20 percent best or the 20 percent worst days, with a few 
exceptions. The exceptions were predicted average degradations of 0.23, 
0.23, and 0.26 deciviews, respectively, at Pine Mountain Wilderness, 
Arizona, Mazatzal Wilderness, Arizona, and Saguaro National Park, 
Arizona, on the 20 percent worst days.\30\ There was also a predicted 
degradation of 0.05 deciviews on the 20 percent best days at Bryce 
Canyon National Park in Utah.\31\ While not part of the two-pronged 
test, we also compared the

[[Page 82228]]

baseline scenario to the ``Nationwide BART'' scenario. The analysis of 
the national region under the ``Nationwide BART'' control scenario 
projected a degradation of 0.23 deciviews on the 20 percent worst days 
at Pine Mountain Wilderness and Mazatzal Wilderness (the same as the 
``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' result just noted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The results for Pine Mountain and Mazatzal were the same 
because they are both represented by the same IMPROVE monitoring 
site (Ike's Backbone, IKBA).
    \31\ Changes in visibility were rounded to the nearest 0.1 
deciviews. Therefore, any changes that were less than 0.05 were 
rounded down and treated as zero. Any changes that were 0.05 or 
greater were rounded up and treated as potential degradation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that unexpected degradations at some western Class I areas 
were predicted for the ``Nationwide BART'' scenario as well as the 
``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' scenario led us to investigate the 
CAMx modeling output in more detail.\32\ Based on that investigation, 
we consider the visibility projections for the western portion of the 
national modeling domain that indicate potential degradation in four 
western Class I areas under the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' 
scenario compared to the ``Base Case'' scenario to be anomalous results 
that do not indicate the true effects that the ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' scenario (or the ``Nationwide BART'' scenario) will have on 
visibility in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Appendix B of the TSD in the docket for this action 
provides more information on this aspect of the CAMx modeling 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CAMx output for 36 km grid cells in the vicinity of these 
four Class I areas, we observed that modeled concentrations of nitrate 
were very low on the 20 percent worst days (and 20 percent best days at 
Bryce Canyon) in both the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' case and 
the ``Nationwide BART'' case. The modeled nitrate concentrations in 
these cases ranged from 0.001 to 0.004 micrograms per cubic meter 
([micro]g/m\3\), averaged across the 20 percent worst or best days in 
2005. Notably, the modeled concentrations were generally a small 
fraction of monitored ambient nitrate concentrations at the IMPROVE 
sites for the four Class I areas. In the cases where degradation was 
calculated, a very small increase in modeled nitrate was observed on 
several of the worst or best modeled days. This lead to a relatively 
large modeled percent increase in nitrate. As an example, on the worst 
days at Pine Mountain and Mazatzal, the modeled nitrate concentration 
increased from 0.001 [micro]g/m\3\ in the 2014 base case to 0.002 
[micro]g/m\3\ in the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' case.
    Further examination of the days when these nitrate increases occur 
reveals a somewhat random pattern of very small increases and decreases 
that appear unrelated to EGU emissions changes. While IPM predicts 
modestly higher NOX emissions in some nearby states under 
the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' scenario, the checkerboard 
pattern of nitrate differences in Arizona and southern Utah show no 
logical connection to these modestly higher emissions. This nitrate 
modeling issue appears similar to a previously noted nitrate chemistry 
stability issue when modeled concentrations are very small and relative 
humidity is very low.\33\ Thus, we conclude that these positive and 
negative differences between very low nitrate concentrations are a 
modeling artifact attributable to the nitrate physics in CAMx for the 
conditions that apply in this geographic area on these days, and are 
not reasonable predictors of the true relative effects on visibility of 
the emission control scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Appendix B of the TSD in the docket for this action 
provides more information on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To illustrate how sensitive the predictions of degradation are to 
highly variable results on particular days, if the one day of the 20 
percent worst or best days with the largest increase in modeled nitrate 
concentration at each site is removed from consideration for that site, 
the apparent degradations no longer occur. We also note that although 
the increases in modeled nitrate concentrations are very small (ranging 
between 0.01 and 0.04 [micro]g/m\3\ for the one day at each site just 
mentioned), the ``relative response factor'' method we used to combine 
CAMx output (representing future conditions) with IMPROVE monitoring 
data (representing historical conditions) greatly magnified these small 
increases in nitrate concentrations. The small increases in modeled 
nitrate are converted to relatively large percent increases in nitrate 
and then multiplied by actual ambient nitrate concentrations in the 
base period that are far higher than the concentrations predicted by 
CAMx. Thus, very small differences in concentrations of nitrate in the 
CAMx output that would have had no effect on calculated deciview values 
if used directly, nevertheless result in apparent degradations on the 
order of 0.1 to 0.26 deciviews after being combined with IMPROVE data. 
The EPA is investigating possible modifications to the software used to 
post-process CAMx output. These possible revisions are aimed at 
avoiding potentially misleading results in situations such as the one 
observed near these western Class I areas. We seek comment on an 
alternate methodology described in Appendix B of the TSD that attempts 
to address the effects of very low nitrate concentrations on visibility 
results.
    After considering the results of the first prong of the visibility 
test and examining the CAMx output in more detail as described above, 
we are confident that no degradation in the four western Class I areas 
will result from implementation of the Transport Rule trading programs 
in the eastern U.S. Consequently, we are proposing that the ``Transport 
Rule + BART-elsewhere'' control scenario passes the first prong of the 
visibility test considering affected Class I areas located in both the 
Transport Rule region (first approach) and the national region (second 
approach). Details on the individual Class I area calculations can be 
found in the air quality modeling TSD.
    The second prong of the test assesses whether the ``Transport Rule 
+ BART-elsewhere'' scenario results in greater average visibility 
improvement at affected Class I areas compared to the ``Nationwide 
BART'' scenario. To determine if ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' 
achieved greater average visibility improvement, we compared the 
visibility impacts of ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' at the Class 
I areas to visibility impacts predicted at these same areas after 
implementation of ``Nationwide BART''. In the Transport Rule region 
(first approach) and the national region (second approach), the average 
visibility improvement of the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' 
alternative was greater than ``Nationwide BART'' on both the 20 percent 
best and 20 percent worst days. Thus, the ``Transport Rule + BART-
elsewhere'' alternative measure passed the second prong of the test, 
regardless of which way affected Class I areas are identified. A 
summary of the results of the second prong of the test for the 
Transport Rule and national regions under each control scenario is 
presented in Table 3.

[[Page 82229]]



                        Table 3--Average Visibility Improvement in 2014 v. 2014 Base Case
                                                   [Deciviews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              ``Transport Rule + BART-
                                                                     elsewhere''           ``Nationwide BART''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 Class I Areas in the Eastern Transport Rule Modeling
 Domain:
    20 percent Worst Days...................................                      1.6                       1.0
    20 percent Best Days....................................                      0.3                       0.2
140 Class I Areas in the Western and Eastern Transport Rule
 Modeling Domains:
    20 percent Worst Days...................................                      0.7                       0.5
    20 percent Best Days....................................                      0.1                       0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Proposed Amendment to the Regional Haze Rule

    Based on our finding that the ``Transport Rule + BART-elsewhere'' 
control scenario passes the two-pronged test, we are proposing to 
determine that the Transport Rule trading programs will provide greater 
progress towards regional haze goals than source-specific BART. This 
proposed determination applies only to EGUs in the Transport Rule 
trading programs and only for the pollutants covered by the programs in 
each state. Accordingly, we propose to revise 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(3)(ii)(4) by essentially replacing the name of CAIR with the 
name of the Transport Rule.
    We are also proposing that a state that chooses to meet the 
emission reduction requirements of the Transport Rule by submitting a 
complete SIP revision substantively identical to the provisions of the 
EPA trading program that is approved as meeting the requirements of 
section 52.38 and/or section 52.39 also need not require BART-eligible 
EGUs in the state to install, operate, and maintain BART for the 
pollutants covered by such a trading program in the state.
    We are preserving the language in the regional haze regulations at 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) that allows states to include in their SIPs 
geographic enhancements to the alternative program to accommodate a 
situation where BART is required based on reasonable attribution of 
visibility impairment at a Class I area.
    A number of the states for which we are proposing a FIP had 
previously failed to either submit a visibility SIP or had failed to 
submit a SIP that could be fully approved under the visibility 
regulations issued in 1980. See 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). The 
proposed regulatory text is drafted to take account of this and is not 
intended to change the findings that have been made in the past with 
respect to the relevant states' compliance with the requirements of 
visibility regulations found at 40 CFR 51.302-51.307.

V. Proposed Limited Disapproval of Certain States' Regional Haze SIPs

    In this action, we are proposing a limited disapproval of the 
regional haze SIPs that have been submitted by Alabama, Florida, 
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, 
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas. These 
states, fully consistent with the EPA's regulations at the time, relied 
on CAIR requirements to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals.
    We are not proposing to disapprove the reasonable progress targets 
for 2018 that are an element of the long-term strategies for these 
states. We made clear in the RHR that the reasonable progress goals are 
not mandatory standards in the sense of there being consequences if 
they are not met, because there are inherent uncertainties in 
projecting future emissions and resulting visibility conditions. See 64 
FR 35733. However, to assess whether current implementation strategies 
will be sufficient to meet the reasonable progress goals, the RHR 
requires a midcourse review by each state and, if necessary, a 
correction of the state's regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). We 
anticipate that since the Transport Rule will result in greater 
emission reductions overall than CAIR, that the need for such 
corrections will be unlikely. Based on the information currently before 
us, we believe that the substitution of the Transport Rule for CAIR 
does not weaken any affected state's long-term strategy, but we will 
assess the midcourse review of each state's SIP to ensure that this is 
so. We intend to act on the reasonable progress goals and long-term 
strategy (including the Transport Rule) and other requirements of the 
RHR (BART determinations for non-EGU sources, monitoring, consultation 
with federal land managers, etc.) for each state in an individual 
notice separately from the final rule for this action. Those individual 
notices will constitute the final action (approval or disapproval) on 
those other elements of the SIP.
    The EPA has already proposed limited disapproval of regional haze 
SIPs that relied on CAIR that were submitted by Kentucky, Tennessee, 
Virginia and West Virginia. The remedies for the limited disapprovals 
previously proposed and those that are proposed in this action are FIPs 
as described in section VI.

VI. Proposed FIPs

    In this action, we are proposing partial regional haze FIPs for 
states for which we already have or are now proposing limited 
disapprovals because of the termination of CAIR. These limited FIPs 
would satisfy the BART requirement and be a part of satisfying the 
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals. The FIPs apply only to EGUs in the 
affected states and only to pollutants covered by the Transport Rule 
programs in those states. For the reasons discussed in section V., the 
proposed FIPs do not alter states' reasonable progress goals or replace 
these goals.
    The proposed FIPs replace reliance on CAIR requirements with 
reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for 
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in the following 
states' regional haze SIPs: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, 
Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. The proposed FIPs replace 
reliance on CAIR requirements with reliance on the Transport Rule as an 
alternative to BART for NOX emissions from EGUs in the 
following states' regional haze SIPs: Florida, Louisiana and 
Mississippi.
    Given the requirements of the CAA to promulgate a FIP after 
disapproving a SIP in whole or in part (CAA section 110(c)(1)), we 
consider it appropriate at this time to propose to issue FIPs to 
address the noted deficiencies in these states' regional haze SIPs 
related to the termination of CAIR and the

[[Page 82230]]

replacement of CAIR with the Transport Rule. A state may choose to 
submit a SIP or remain subject to this FIP. The proposed regional haze 
FIPs rely on the trading programs set out in the FIPs promulgated by 
the EPA in August 2011 in the Transport Rule to limit the interstate 
transport of NOX and SO2.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because some may view it 
as raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the 
Executive Order. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in 
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for 
this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action does not include or 
require any information collection.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a 
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district, or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule 
will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, this 
proposed rule would allow states to avoid regulating EGUs in new ways 
based on the current requirements of the Transport Rule and as such 
does not impose any new requirements on small entities. We continue to 
be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538) for state, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action merely 
interprets the statutory requirements that apply to states in preparing 
their SIPs and thus apply also to FIPs.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose any new 
mandates on state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 
does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 
governments, the EPA is specifically soliciting comments on this 
proposed rule from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The rule does 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 
since there are no BART-eligible EGU sources on tribal lands in the 
Transport Rule region. In addition, the CAA does not provide for the 
inclusion of any tribal areas as mandatory Class I federal areas; thus, 
tribal areas are not subject to the requirements of the RHR. 
Furthermore, this proposed rule does not affect the relationship or 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action. The EPA specifically solicits additional comment 
on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may 
disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the emissions 
reductions from the strategies in this rule will further improve air 
quality and will further improve children's health.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy because it does not establish 
requirements that directly affect the general public and the public and 
private sectors. Rather, this proposed rule would allow states to avoid 
regulating EGUs in new ways based on the current requirements of the 
Transport Rule, and thus may avoid adverse effects that conceivably 
might result from such additional regulation of EGUs by states.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be

[[Page 82231]]

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, 
through OMB, explanations when the EPA decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking does not 
involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the 
use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (EO) (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main 
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    When considering the possible environmental justice impacts of this 
proposed rule, it is important to distinguish the set of scenarios on 
which the better-than-BART analysis described in this notice is based 
from the set of possible future situations that could come to pass 
based on the outcome of this rulemaking. The Transport Rule is in place 
and will remain in place regardless of the outcome of this rulemaking. 
If we finalize the proposed rule, a regional haze SIP or FIP for an 
affected state will be able to satisfy the BART requirement for EGUs 
(for NOX only or for SO2 and NOX, 
depending on which Transport Rule programs apply in that state) merely 
by formally incorporating the Transport Rule into the long-term 
strategy of the SIP.\34\ If we do not adopt any rule establishing the 
Transport Rule as an alternative to BART, the EGUs in each affected 
state will still be required to participate in the cap-and-trade 
programs established by the Transport Rule. In this case, the SIP or 
FIP would also have to apply source-specific BART to all BART-eligible 
sources except any that are found not to be subject to BART due to 
minimal impacts on visibility or any that the state concludes should 
not be further controlled based on its consideration of existing 
controls, cost of additional controls, remaining lifetime of the unit, 
other non-air impacts and visibility impacts from controls. It is 
important to recognize that because of the nature of cap-and-trade 
programs, total state-wide emissions will not be very different, if at 
all, if the EPA were not to make a final determination that 
participation in the Transport Rule trading programs satisfied the BART 
requirements. Any EGUs participating in the Transport Rule trading 
programs that would be required to comply with source-specific BART 
would generate tradable emission allowances that would find buyers 
among the other EGUs in the state. Thus, we expect that the outcome of 
the Transport Rule may change how a fixed amount of total emissions 
from EGUs is divided among EGUs in a given affected state. Because of 
the certainty of EGUs collectively meeting the Transport Rule emission 
caps, that fixed amount of emissions will generally be substantially 
less than historical total EGU emissions in a given state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Such action by a state would not preclude it from also 
including in the SIP source-specific emission limits for EGUs of its 
choosing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have concluded that it is not practicable to perform an analysis 
which would attempt to predict exactly which EGUs would have higher and 
lower emissions under the Transport Rule trading programs and source-
specific BART. We have, however, identified the locations of BART-
eligible sources in Transport Rule-affected states to determine if 
there are high percentages of minority or low-income populations living 
near such sources. These are the sources that conceivably could have 
higher emissions if we finalize the proposed rule than if we do not. An 
analysis of demographic data shows that the average percentage of 
African Americans living within a 3-mile radius of BART-eligible 
sources in Transport Rule-affected states is somewhat higher (18 
percent) than the corresponding national average (12 percent). All 
other socio-demographic parameters evaluated are within two percent of 
the national average percentages, or below the national average 
percentages. The results of the demographic analysis are presented in 
the memorandum titled, ``Demographic Proximity Analysis for BART-
Eligible Electric Generating Units,'' July 2011, a copy of which is 
available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729). Strictly speaking, if 
we were not to finalize this rule and the states (or we, through FIPs) 
were to impose source-specific BART on these sources, other sources 
might increase their emissions under the cap-and-trade programs. Since 
we do not know which other sources might do so, we could not perform a 
similar demographic analysis on such other sources.
    We do know that under the Transport Rule, ozone and 
PM2.5 air quality and health risks will be greatly reduced 
compared either to current conditions or to future conditions if there 
were no Transport Rule. In the Transport Rule, the EPA estimated the 
distribution of PM2.5 mortality risks according to race, 
income, and educational attainment before and after implementation of 
the Transport Rule. In that analysis, we found that the Transport Rule 
market-based regional approach to reducing emissions of SO2 
and NOX from EGUs provided the greatest PM2.5-
related health benefits among populations: (1) Most susceptible to air 
pollution impacts, regardless of race; (2) with lower levels of 
educational attainment; and (3) living in counties with among the 
highest number of individuals living below the poverty line. The 
analysis also indicates that the Transport Rule, in conjunction with 
the implementation of existing or proposed rules, will reduce the 
disparity in risk between the highest-risk counties and the other 95 
percent of counties for all races and educational levels. This analysis 
is presented in more detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 
Transport Rule which is available in the Transport Rule docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0491 and from the main EPA Web page for the Transport Rule 
www.epa.gov/airtransport.
    The results of the Transport Rule analysis suggest that regional 
reductions in PM2.5 levels can produce significant human 
health benefits--particularly among populations most susceptible and 
vulnerable to PM2.5 impacts. PM2.5 air quality 
improvements that would be expected under implementation of source-
specific BART may differ from the Transport Rule in terms of the 
emission reductions required at any given source, especially since 
states have the discretion to determine which BART-eligible sources to 
control and the level of control that is feasible. However, the results 
of the Transport Rule assessment suggest that the regional Transport 
Rule approach provides widespread health benefits especially among 
populations at greatest risk.

[[Page 82232]]

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: December 23, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, parts 51 and 52 of 
chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 51.308 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(4) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  51.308  Regional haze program requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) A State subject to a trading program established in accordance 
with Sec.  52.38 or Sec.  52.39 under a Transport Rule Federal 
Implementation Plan need not require BART-eligible fossil fuel-fired 
electric steam generating plants in the State to install, operate, and 
maintain BART for the pollutant covered by such trading program in the 
State. A State that chooses to meet the emission reduction requirements 
of the Transport Rule by submitting a SIP revision that establishes a 
trading program and is approved as meeting the requirements of Sec.  
52.38 or Sec.  52.39 also need not require BART-eligible fossil fuel-
fired electric steam generating plants in the State to install, 
operate, and maintain BART for the pollutant covered by such trading 
program in the State. A State may adopt provisions, consistent with the 
requirements applicable to the State for a trading program established 
in accordance with Sec.  52.38 or Sec.  52.39 under the Transport Rule 
Federal Implementation Plan or established under a SIP revision that is 
approved as meeting the requirements of Sec.  52.38 or Sec.  52.39, for 
a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement 
under Sec.  51.302(c) related to BART for reasonably attributable 
impairment from the pollutant covered by such trading program in that 
State.
* * * * *

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

    4. Section 52.61 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.61  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of 
NOX are satisfied by Sec.  52.54 for the sources subject to 
those requirements.
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of 
SO2 are satisfied by Sec.  52.55 for the sources subject to 
those requirements.

Subpart K--Florida

    5. Section 52.534 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.534  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.305, 51.307, and 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.540 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart L--Georgia

    6. Section 52.580 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.580  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.584 with respect to emissions of NOX 
for the sources subject to those requirements.
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.585 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart P--Indiana

    7. Section 52.791 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.791  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are satisfied by 
Sec.  52.789 for the sources subject to those requirements.
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are satisfied by 
Sec.  52.790 for the sources subject to those requirements.

Subpart Q--Iowa

    8. Section 52.842 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.842  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and(e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.840 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.841 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

[[Page 82233]]

Subpart S--Kentucky

    9. Section 52.936 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(a) and (b) and adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.936  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.940 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.941 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart T--Louisiana

    10. Section 52.985 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.985  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.984 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart X--Michigan

    11. Section 52.1183 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1183  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.307, and 51.308(d)(3) and 
(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1186 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1187 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart Z--Mississippi

    12. Section 52.1279 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1279  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1284 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart AA--Missouri

    13. Section 52.1339 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1339  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1236 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1327 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart II--North Carolina

    14. Section 52.1776 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1776  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1784 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1785 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart KK--Ohio

    15. Section 52.1886 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1886  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1882 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.1883 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

    16. Section 52.2042 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2042  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2040 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2041 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart PP--South Carolina

    17. Section 52.2132 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2132  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, and 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2140 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2141 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

[[Page 82234]]

Subpart RR--Tennessee

    18. Section 52.2234 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2234  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for protection of 
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
    (b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2240 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2241 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart SS--Texas

    19. Section 52.2304 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2304  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.305, and 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (c) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2283 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2284 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart VV--Virginia

    20. Section 52.2452 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2452  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, and 51.308(d)(3) and (e) for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2440 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2441 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

    21. Section 52.2533 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2533  Visibility protection.

    (a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, 51.305, 51.307, and 51.308(d)(3) and 
(e) for protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
* * * * *
    (d) Best Available Retrofit Technology for NOX. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOX are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2540 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
    (e) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2. The requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 are 
satisfied by Sec.  52.2541 for the sources subject to those 
requirements.
[FR Doc. 2011-33586 Filed 12-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560--50-P