[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3712-3719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1514]



[[Page 3712]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0329; FRL-9622-9]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Ohio 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for the first 
implementation period. Ohio submitted its regional haze plan on March 
11, 2011. The Ohio regional haze plan addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements for states to remedy any existing 
and prevent future anthropogenic impairment of visibility at mandatory 
Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous 
sources located over a wide geographic area, also referred to as the 
``regional haze program''. States are required to assure reasonable 
progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility 
conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of 
these SIP revisions to implement the regional haze requirements for 
Ohio on the basis that the revisions, as a whole, strengthen the Ohio 
SIP. In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited 
disapproval of the Ohio regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in 
the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA 
of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Consequently, we are not 
taking action in this notice to address the state's reliance on CAIR to 
meet certain regional haze requirements.

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0329, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0329. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at 
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

[[Page 3713]]

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

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

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a Federal Land Manager. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we 
use the term ``Class I area,'' we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal 
area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's RHR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources known as, ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. These regulations, codified at 40 CFR 
part 50, subpart P, represented the first phase in addressing 
visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that 
emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and 
scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and 
visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR, 
on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR, which amends 40 CFR part 50, 
subpart P, 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 subpart P requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 
51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection 
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the 
regional haze requirements are summarized in section III. The 
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various federal agencies. Pollution affecting the air quality in Class 
I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of 
kilometers. Therefore, effectively addressing the problem of visibility 
impairment in Class I areas means that states need to develop 
coordinated strategies that take into account the effect of emissions 
from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another state.
    EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective because the pollutants that lead 
to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad 
geographic areas. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were 
developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first 
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states 
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country and then pursued the 
development of regional strategies to reduce PM2.5 emissions 
and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The Midwest RPO (MRPO) is a collaborative effort of state 
governments and various federal agencies established to initiate and 
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, 
visibility and other air quality issues in the Midwest. The member 
states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Plans must also give specific 
attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on 
August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require those sources to install best available retrofit technology 
(BART) reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP 
requirements are discussed in further detail below.

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

    The RHR establishes the deciview \3\ (dv) as the principal metric 
or unit for expressing visibility impairment. This visibility metric 
expresses uniform proportional changes in haziness in terms of common 
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from 
pristine to extremely hazy

[[Page 3714]]

conditions. Visibility expressed in deciview is determined by using air 
quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming 
the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The deciview 
is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility 
than light extinction itself because each deciview change is an equal 
incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most 
people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals 
(RPGs), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and 
tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain 
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal 
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas 
caused by anthropogenic air pollution. The national goal is a return to 
natural conditions such that anthropogenic sources of air pollution 
would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part 
of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time of each regional haze SIP is submitted and at the 
progress review every five years, midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. The RHR requires states with Class I areas 
(Class I states) to determine the degree of impairment in deciviews for 
the average of the 20 percent least impaired (best) and 20 percent most 
impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each 
of its Class I areas. Each state must also develop an estimate of 
natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf ) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf )) (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIP, due December 17, 2007, the 
``baseline visibility conditions'' are the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent best days and 20 percent worst days for each calendar year from 
2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are 
required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for 
each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the five-
year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions 
to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement 
necessary to attain natural visibility, while comparisons of future 
conditions against baseline conditions will indicate the amount of 
progress made. In general, the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 
considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two distinct RPGs, one for the best 
days and one for the worst days for every Class I area for each 
approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate 
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states 
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward 
achieving natural visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a state with 
a mandatory Class I area (Class I state) must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the worst days over the approximately 10-
year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
best days.
    Class I states have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, 
but are required to consider the following factors established in 
section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): 
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) 
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and 
(4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. The 
states must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered 
when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take 
these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA's Guidance for 
Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, 
(``EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from 
William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp.4-2, 5-
1). In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress 
needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (``uniform rate 
of progress'' or ``glide path'') and the emissions reduction needed to 
achieve that rate of progress over the approximately 10-year period of 
the SIP. In setting RPGs, each Class I state must also consult with 
potentially contributing states, i.e. those states that may affect 
visibility impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(iv).

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain older large stationary sources to address 
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, CAA section 
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such 
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the 
natural visibility goal including a requirement that certain categories 
of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 
procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. The set 
of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject to BART is listed 
in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
Part 51 (BART Guidelines) to assist states in determining which of 
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in 
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. A 
state must use the approach in the BART Guidelines in making a BART 
determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGU) 
with total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. States are 
encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making 
BART determinations for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether

[[Page 3715]]

VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility in Class I areas.
    States may select an exemption threshold value for their BART 
modeling under the BART Guidelines, below which a BART-eligible source 
may be considered to have a small enough contribution to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area to warrant being exempted from the BART 
requirement. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. The 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. 
Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impact.
    The state must identify potential BART sources in its SIP, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document its 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state to consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. The 
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA 
approval of the state's regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, 
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all 
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    The RHR also allows states to implement an alternative program in 
lieu of BART only if the alternative program can be demonstrated to 
achieve greater progress toward the national visibility goal than 
implementing BART controls. EPA made such a demonstration for CAIR 
under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program. 70 
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provided that states 
participating in the CAIR trading program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 
to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected 
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions 
of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). CAIR is not 
applicable to emissions of PM, so states were still required to conduct 
a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that 
pollutant.
    CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of 
the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until the 
Agency replaced it. Id. EPA replaced CAIR with the Transport Rule in 
August 2011.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading 
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable 
progress towards the national goal than would be obtained by 
implementing BART for SO2 and NOX for BART-
subject EGUs in the area subject to the Transport Rule. 76 FR 82219. 
Based on the proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 
allow states, including Ohio, to meet the requirements of an 
alternative program in lieu of BART by participation in the trading 
programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken final action on 
that rule.

D. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the 
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the 
implementation period of the specific SIP submission to meet applicable 
RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
RPGs for all Class I areas within or affected by emissions from the 
state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all 
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to address interstate 
visibility issues sufficiently.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, 
minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how 
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account 
in developing their LTS. The seven factors are: (1) Emission reductions 
due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to 
address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction 
activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to 
achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) 
smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management 
purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these 
purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control 
measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to 
projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the 
period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS

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

[[Page 3716]]

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) includes the requirement for a monitoring 
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze 
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I 
areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the 
monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance 
with this requirement may be met through participation in the IMPROVE 
network, meaning that the state reviews and uses monitoring data from 
the network. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional 
monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine 
whether RPGs will be met. The monitoring strategy is due with the first 
regional haze SIP and it must be reviewed every five years.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and 
where possible in electronic format;
     A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a 
baseline year, emissions for the most recent year with available data, 
and future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to 
update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility;
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018 with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core 
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The 
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

G. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMS)

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

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

    Ohio submitted its regional haze plan on March 11, 2011, which 
included revisions to the Ohio SIP to address regional haze.

A. Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I 
areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be 
affected by that state's emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Ohio does not 
have any Class I areas within the state. Ohio reviewed technical 
analyses conducted by MRPO and other regional planning organizations to 
determine what Class I areas outside the state are affected by Ohio 
emission sources. MRPO conducted both a back trajectory analysis and 
modeling to determine the affects of its states' emissions. Ohio also 
used assessments by MANE-VU, the regional planning organization for 
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states and by VISTAS, the regional 
planning organization for Southeastern states. Finally, Ohio used a 
joint state assessment by Arkansas and Missouri. The conclusion from 
these five technical analyses is that Ohio emissions affect 15 Class I 
areas. The affected Class I areas are: Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo 
Wilderness Areas in Arkansas; Mammoth Cave in Kentucky; Acadia National 
Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine; Hercules-Glades and Mingo 
Wilderness Areas in Missouri; Great Gulf Wilderness Area in New 
Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area in New Jersey; Great Smoky 
Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; Lye Brook 
Wilderness Area in Vermont; James River Face Wilderness Area and 
Shenandoah National Park in Virginia; and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek 
Wilderness Area in West Virginia. Ohio has thereby satisfied the 
requirement to identify the Class I areas it affects.

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The RHR requires Class I states to calculate the baseline and 
natural conditions for their Class I areas. Ohio does not have any 
Class I areas. Therefore, Ohio is not required to submit such 
calculations.

C. RPGs

    Class I states must set RPGs that achieve reasonable progress 
toward achieving natural visibility conditions. Ohio does not have any 
Class I areas, so it does not need to set any RPGs. Ohio did consult 
with affected Class I states to ensure that it achieves its fair share 
of the overall emission reductions necessary to achieve the RPGs of 
Class I areas that it affects.
    Ohio consulted with the FLMs during the development of its regional 
haze plan. Ohio submitted a draft of its regional haze plan to the FLMs 
on September 9, 2008. The FLMs provided comments on October 16, 2008. 
Ohio sent the FLMs a revised regional haze plan on December 29, 2008. 
Ohio revised its plan based on the initial comments. Ohio later held a 
public hearing on February 26, 2009, which also concluded the public 
comment. The Forest Service gave additional comments in a February 25, 
2009, letter. A joint March 10, 2009, letter from the National Park 
Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also provided comments on 
Ohio's plan. Ohio has committed to continue to consult with the FLMs as 
it develops future SIP revisions and progress reports.
    Ohio participated in meetings and on conference call with affected 
Class I states and RPOs. Ohio consulted with Minnesota and Michigan on 
their Class I areas. Ohio also participated in MRPO's inter-RPO 
consultations. MANE-VU, the RPO for the Northeastern states, 
facilitated

[[Page 3717]]

consultation between Ohio and Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and 
Vermont. Ohio also consulted with Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North 
Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia.
    Ohio included the MPRO technical support document (TSD) in its 
submission. In Section 5 of the TSD, MPRO assessed the reasonable 
progress using the four factors required by the RHR. The factors 
considered are the cost of compliance, time needed, energy and non-air 
impacts, and remaining useful life.
    In analyzing the visibility benefits of existing programs, MPRO 
considered existing on-highway mobile source, off-highway mobile 
source, area source, power plant, and other point source programs. MPRO 
also included reductions from the since vacated CAIR in its analysis. 
Following the court vacatur of CAIR, MRPO performed an additional 
analysis intended to project air quality in the absence of CAIR. MPRO 
projected visibility in 2018 under three scenarios in this analysis. 
The first scenario reflected simple emissions growth from a baseline 
that reflects power plant emissions in 2007, prior to most of the 
emission controls pursuant to CAIR being installed. The second scenario 
added reductions for power plants controls that are enforceable under 
federal or state consent decrees, permits, or rules. The final scenario 
also added power plant controls that the utilities anticipated 
installing, presumably under the expectation that EPA would issue a 
rule to replace CAIR, plus power plant controls representing BART where 
applicable. The MRPO analysis showed that many Class I areas, including 
those impacted by Ohio, will fail to meet the 2018 RPGs with the 
emission reductions resulting from CAIR.
    Ohio believes that implementation of the existing control measures 
listed in section 10 of its regional haze plan is expected to provide 
its fair share of emission reductions that should allow affected Class 
I areas to meet the RPGs. However, CAIR is one of the existing control 
measures and the MRPO analysis shows emission reductions equivalent to 
the scale of CAIR are needed to meet RPGs. Reliance on CAIR as part of 
a state's LTS to achieve the state-adopted RPGs is discussed in section 
E of this notice.

D. BART

    Ohio conducted a BART analysis using the criteria in the BART 
Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and Appendix Y to identify all of the 
BART-eligible sources, assess whether the BART-eligible sources are 
subject to BART and determine the BART controls. These criteria are: 
(1) One or more emissions units at the facility fit within one of the 
26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) emissions unit(s) was 
constructed on or after August 6, 1962, and was in existence prior to 
August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing 
pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year. Ohio 
initially identified 39 BART-eligible sources, including 18 EGUs and 21 
other facilities. Ohio did not consider EGUs in its analysis as it 
chose to meet BART requirements for EGUs for SO2 and 
NOX by participation in CAIR, and because the particulate 
matter emissions from EGUs were found not to warrant further control. 
Ohio found that 12 non-EGUs remained as potential BART sources after 
further screening. Ohio then used the modeling protocol MRPO developed 
to determine the sources subject to BART. MRPO conferred with its 
states, EPA, and the FLMs in developing its BART modeling protocol. 
Consistent with EPA guidance, the state used a 0.5 dv impact (98th 
percentile) as the threshold for a source to contribute to visibility 
impairment, concluding that such a threshold provided an appropriate 
means of identifying which sources cause sufficient visibility 
impairment to warrant being subject to BART. Ohio found that just one 
non-EGU facility was subject to BART, P.H. Glatfelter of Ross County.
    Ohio performed a five factor BART determination of the Glatfelter 
facility. Glatfelter added NOX controls to both units in 
2001 and 2003. Additional NOX combustions controls are 
technically infeasible for tangentially fired boilers. Ohio determined 
that post-combustion control was unnecessary because additional 
NOX reductions would have negligible visibility impact. Ohio 
concluded that operating the units at the current emission limits 
satisfies the BART requirement for NOX.
    Ohio evaluated several SO2 control devices for the 
Glatfelter boilers. The BART determination process lead to narrowing 
the potential control devices down to three options--wet flue gas 
desulfurization (FGD), semi-dry FGD, and over-fire air (OFA) with a 
sorbent injection system (SIS). Ohio and MPRO conducted visibility 
modeling of the BART options. Modeling of the FGD controls indicates an 
average of less than one day with impairment over 0.5 dv at affected 
Class I sites, which does not contribute to visibility impairment. Both 
FGD controls are expected to achieve a 90 percent reduction in 
SO2 emissions. The OFA/SIS option would reduce emissions by 
about 60 percent and yield modeling impacts over 0.5 dv on up to 7 days 
a year. Ohio selected semi-dry FGD as the BART SO2 control, 
which is expected to reduce SO2 emissions by 20,515 tons per 
year.
    P.H. Glatfelter is subject to an alternative to BART. Ohio issued a 
permit on March 7, 2011, with the limitations on Glatfelter's Boilers 7 
and 8. P.H. Glatfelter must operate its PM control devices, cyclones 
and electrostatic precipitators, and its NOX control 
devices, low-NOX burners with over-fire air, on both units. 
The NOX controls are to be operated all year instead of just 
the May 1 to September 30 control period. P.H. Glatfelter will add a 
control device, use alternate fuel, use low sulfur fuel, use a 
combination of measures, or permanently shut down a boiler to achieve a 
SO2 emission limit of 24,930 pounds per calendar day. Ohio's 
permit specifies that this limit is for Boilers 7 and 8 combined. 
Continuous emission monitor systems will be used to measure the daily 
SO2 emissions. P.H. Glatfelter will comply with the 
alternative to BART emission limits by December 31, 2014.
    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's alternative to BART limits for 
P.H. Glatfelter. Ohio is requiring P.H. Glatfelter to continue 
operation of its PM and NOX controls. Modeling shows 
negligible visibility benefit for PM reductions. The BART determination 
indicated that additional NOX control is unnecessary and 
Glatfelter will use its controls all year long. The SO2 
emission limit of 24,930 pounds per calendar day given to Boilers 7 and 
8 in the permit are slightly more stringent that what Ohio determined 
as BART. The semi-dry FGD that Ohio selected as the BART SO2 
control would have an emission limit of 24,931 pounds SO2 
per day for both units. EPA is satisfied with the limits because they 
are the as stringent as what Ohio determined to fulfill BART 
requirements. EPA proposes in particular to approve permit number 
P0103673 issued on March 7, 2011, that imposes these limitations on the 
P.H. Glatfelter facility.
    Ohio used a cumulative modeling analysis by MRPO to determine that 
PM and VOC emissions will not cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment. The MRPO analysis of all point sources in the region showed 
a cumulative impact of less than 0.5 dv at any Class I area. PM and VOC 
emissions from just Ohio sources would be well less than from all 
states and even smaller when considering only 39 of those sources are 
BART-eligible. Ohio therefore concludes that PM and VOC emissions from 
its BART sources have a negligible

[[Page 3718]]

visibility impact. Thus, it did not consider PM or VOC reductions in 
its BART determinations.

E. LTS

    Under Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states' 
regional haze programs must include an LTS for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. Ohio's LTS must 
address visibility improvement for the Class I areas impacted by Ohio 
sources. Section 51.308(d)(3) requires that Ohio consult with the 
affected states in order to develop a coordinated emission management 
strategy. A contributing state, such as Ohio, must demonstrate that it 
has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share of 
the emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I areas 
affected by Ohio sources. As described in section III.E., the LTS is 
the compilation of all control measures Ohio will use to meet 
applicable RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions 
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to 
achieve the RPGs for all Class I areas affected by Ohio emissions.
    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR identifies seven factors that a 
state must consider in developing its LTS: (A) Emission reductions due 
to ongoing programs, (B) measures to mitigate impact from construction, 
(C) emission limits to achieve the RPG, (D) replacement and retirement 
of sources, (E) smoke management techniques, (F) federally enforceable 
emission limits and control measures, and (G) the net effect on 
visibility due to projected emission changes over the LTS period. Ohio 
considered the seven factors in developing its LTS.
    Ohio relied on MPRO's modeling and analysis along with its emission 
information in developing an LTS. Ohio consulted with Class I states 
through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated consultations with 
other Midwest states and with states in other regions through inter-RPO 
processes. Ohio considered the factors set out in 51.308(d)(3)(v) in 
developing its LTS. Based on these factors and the MRPO's technical 
analysis, in conjunction with RPGs that were set by the pertinent 
states in consultation with Ohio and other states, Ohio concludes that 
existing control programs adequately address Ohio's impact on Class I 
areas and suffice to meet their RPGs by 2018 by implementing the 
control programs already in place. These existing control programs 
include federal motor vehicle emission control program, reformulated 
gasoline, emission limits for area sources of VOCs, Title IV, the 
NOX SIP Call, NOX Reasonable Achievable Control 
Technology, Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, and 
federal non-road standards for construction equipment and vehicles. 
These programs are fully enforceable, provide for the mitigation of new 
source impacts through new source permitting programs, and reflect 
appropriate consideration of current programs and prospective changes 
in emissions.
    As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing revisions to the RHR 
(76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011), a number of states, including Ohio, 
fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time, relied on the 
trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. In 
that notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Ohio's LTS based on 
its reliance on CAIR. Comments on that proposed determination may be 
directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. We are proposing to 
find that the remaining elements of Ohio's LTS meet the requirements of 
the RHR.

F. Monitoring Strategy

    Ohio's monitoring strategy relies on participation in the IMPROVE 
network. There is an IMPROVE Protocol monitoring site in Quaker City, 
Ohio. Ohio also runs a network of criteria pollutant monitors that 
provides data to analyze air quality problems including regional haze. 
Ohio is required under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) to have procedures for using 
the monitoring data to determine the contribution of emissions from 
within the state to affected Class I areas. Ohio developed procedures 
in conjunction with the MRPO. The procedures are detailed in the MRPO 
TSD. EPA finds that Ohio's regional haze plan meets the monitoring 
requirements for the RHR and that Ohio's network of monitoring sites is 
satisfactory to measure air quality and assess its contribution to 
regional haze.

G. Comments

    Ohio took comments on its proposed regional haze plan. It held a 
public hearing on February 26, 2009, which concluded the public comment 
period. Ohio also received comments from the FLMs as part of the 
consultation process. Evidence of the public notice and evidence of the 
public hearing were submitted to EPA.
    Ohio provided the comments it received and its responses in a 
document within its regional haze plan. Ohio revised portions of its 
plan in response to comments. This includes emission limits on the non-
EGU BART facility being tightened from Ohio's draft plan. Ohio has 
satisfied the requirements from 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V to provide 
evidence that it gave public notice, took comments, and that it 
compiled and responded to comments.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Ohio SIP, 
submitted on March 11, 2011, addressing regional haze for the first 
implementation period. The revisions seek to satisfy CAA and regional 
haze rule requirements for states to remedy any existing anthropogenic 
and prevent future impairment of visibility at Class I areas.
    EPA finds that Ohio's submission satisfies BART requirements for 
non-EGUs, most notably by providing new, tighter emission limits for 
the Glatfelter facility in Ross County, Ohio, Ohio's submission 
provides an approvable analysis of the emission reductions needed to 
satisfy reasonable progress and other regional haze planning 
requirements, and Ohio's submission meets other regional haze planning 
requirements such as identification of affected Class I areas and 
provision of a monitoring plan. Because for these reasons Ohio's 
submission helps address regional haze planning requirements, EPA is 
also proposing limited approval of Ohio's submission for its SIP 
strengthening effect.
    In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited 
disapproval of the Ohio regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in 
the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA 
of CAIR. 76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011. Consequently, we are not 
taking action in this notice to address the state's reliance on CAIR to 
meet certain regional haze requirements.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office

[[Page 3719]]

of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-1514 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P