
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3975-3984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1604]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0080; FRL-9622-7]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the 
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for 
the first implementation period. Indiana submitted its regional haze 
plan on January 14, 2011, and supplemented it on March 10, 2011. The 
Indiana regional haze plan addresses the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) and Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements for states 
to remedy any existing and prevent future anthropogenic impairment of 
visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air 
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area 
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are 
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of 
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of these SIP revisions to implement the 
regional haze requirements for Indiana on the basis that the revisions, 
as a whole, strengthen the Indiana SIP. In a separate action, EPA has 
previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Indiana regional haze 
SIP because of the deficiencies in Indiana's regional haze SIP 
submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR). Consequently, we are not proposing to take action in this 
notice to address the state's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional 
haze requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0080, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-0080. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of

[[Page 3976]]

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, 
at (312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategy Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's RHR
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. The CAA and the RHR
    B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions
    C. Determination of RPGs
    D. BART
    E. LTS
    F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS
    G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR and the transport rule to 
the regional haze requirements?
    A. Overview of EPA's CAIR
    B. Remand of the CAIR
    C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially Affected by the CAIR 
Remand and Promulgation of Transport Rule
V. What is EPA's analysis of Indiana's regional haze plan?
    A. Rationale and Scope of Proposed Limited Approval
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

A. The Regional Haze Problem

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

    \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'' in this action, 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 areas which impairment 
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA 
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources known as, ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (RAVI). See 45 FR 80084. These regulations, codified at 40 
CFR part 50, subpart P, represented the first phase in addressing 
visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that 
emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and 
scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and 
visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR, 
on July

[[Page 3977]]

1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR, which amends 40 CFR part 50, subpart P, 
revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate provisions 
addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive 
visibility protection program for Class I areas. The subpart P 
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are 
summarized in section III. The requirement to submit a regional haze 
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 
Islands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 entire 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, to effectively address the problem of visibility 
impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in 
coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of 
emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another state.
    EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective because the pollutants that lead 
to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad 
geographic areas. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were 
developed to address regional haze and related issues in their 
geographical area. The five RPOs are the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern 
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) for the Northeastern states, the Visibility 
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), the 
Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO), the Central Regional Air 
Planning Association (CENRAP), and Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP). The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better 
understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the 
country and then pursued the development of regional strategies to 
reduce PM2.5 emissions and other pollutants leading to 
regional haze.
    The State of Indiana participated in the planning efforts of the 
MRPO. The MRPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal 
governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and 
coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, 
visibility and other air quality issues inside the borders of the five 
States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Members of 
MRPO include the five states, the Federal Land Managers (U.S. National 
Park Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service), 
and EPA.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

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

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

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

    \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 deciview for 
the average of the 20 percent least impaired (best) and 20 percent most 
impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each 
of its Class I areas. Each state must also develop an estimate of 
natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIP, the ``baseline visibility 
conditions'' are the starting points for assessing ``current'' 
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the 
degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent best days and 20 
percent worst days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004.

[[Page 3978]]

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.

C. Determination of RPGs

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

D. BART

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain older large stationary sources to address 
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, CAA section 
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such 
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the 
natural visibility goal including a requirement that certain categories 
of existing major stationary sources \4\ built between 1962 and 1977 
procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under 
the RHR, the state can require source-specific BART controls, but it 
also has the flexibility to adopt an alternative such as an emissions 
trading program or alternate control providing greater progress towards 
improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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. (70 
FR 39104) A state must use the approach in the BART Guidelines in 
making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating 
unit (EGUs) with total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. 
States are encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines 
in making BART determinations for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in 
determining whether VOC and NH3 emissions impair visibility 
in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would 
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. The 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.50 dv. 
Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impact.
    The state must identify potential BART sources in its SIP, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document its 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state to consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. The 
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA 
approval of the state's regional haze SIP. See CAA section 169(g)(4); 
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, 
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all 
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    The RHR also allows states to implement an alternative program in 
lieu of BART if desired so long as the alternative program can be 
demonstrated to achieve greater progress toward the national visibility 
goal than implementing BART controls. EPA made such a demonstration for 
CAIR under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze 
program. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that 
states participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR 
part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to 
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not 
require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain 
BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). Since

[[Page 3979]]

CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, states were still required 
to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART 
for that pollutant.
    CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of 
the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until the 
Agency replaced it. EPA replaced CAIR with the Transport Rule in August 
2011.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading 
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable 
progress towards the national goal than would be obtained by 
implementing BART for SO2 and NOX for BART-
subject EGUs in the area subject to the Transport Rule. 76 FR 82219. 
Based on that proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 
allow states, including Indiana, to meet the requirements of an 
alternative program in lieu of BART by participation in the trading 
programs under the Transport Rule. The Transport Rule is not applicable 
to emissions of PM, so states would still be required to conduct a BART 
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. 
EPA has not taken final action on that rule.

E. LTS

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

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI LTS

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

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

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

[[Page 3980]]

H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers(FLMs)

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

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

    Indiana submitted its regional haze plan on January 14, 2011, and 
supplemented it on March 10, 2011.

A. Affected Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I 
areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be 
affected by that state's emissions. Indiana does not have any Class I 
areas within its borders, but has been identified as influencing the 
visibility impairment of Class I areas in other nearby states. Indiana 
is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses its 
visibility impairment on Class I areas it may affect describing its 
LTS, its role in the consultation processes, and how the SIP meets 
other elements in EPA's RHR. Since Indiana does not have any Class I 
areas within its borders, and has no sources that have been identified 
as causes of RAVI, however, Indiana is not required to address the 
following Regional Haze SIP elements: (1) Calculation of baseline and 
natural visibility conditions; (2) establishment of reasonable progress 
goals; (3) monitoring requirements, and (4) RAVI requirements.
    Indiana reviewed technical analyses conducted by MRPO and other 
RPOs to determine what Class I areas are affected by Indiana's 
emissions. MPRO conducted both a back trajectory analysis and modeling 
to determine the affects of its states' emissions. Indiana also used 
assessments by MANE-VU, VISTAS, and a joint state assessment by 
Arkansas and Missouri, each of which identified states having non-de 
minimus impacts on specified Class I areas. The following are Class I 
areas identified as being affected by Indiana sources:

Southeastern U.S. (VISTAS)--Sipsey Wilderness Area, Alabama; Mammoth 
Cave National Park, Kentucky; Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 
North Carolina and Tennessee; James River Face Wilderness Area, 
Virginia (VA); Shenandoah National Park, VA; and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek 
Wilderness Areas, West Virginia (WVA)
Eastern U.S. (MANE-VU)--Acadia National Park, Maine; Moosehorn 
Wilderness Area, Maine; Great Gulf Wilderness Area, New Hampshire; 
Brigantine Wilderness Area, New Jersey; and Lye Brook Wilderness Area, 
Vermont
North Central U.S. (MRPO and CENRAP)--Isle Royale National Park, 
Michigan (MI); Seney National Wildlife Refuge, MI; Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness Area, Minnesota (MN); and Voyageurs National 
Park, MN
South Central U.S. (CENRAP)--Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, Missouri 
(MO); Mingo Wilderness Area, MO; Caney Creek Wilderness Area, Arizona 
(AR); and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, AR

    Appendix 1 of Indiana's Regional Haze SIP contains a list of these 
Class I areas for all the Midwest states, and the analyses performed to 
assess the impact from Indiana sources compiled by the MRPO. Class I 
areas outside the areas listed above were not analyzed further, as 
there were no significant impacts from Indiana sources shown. Further, 
no impacts were noted in the WRAP states.

B. Determination of Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The RHR requires Class I states to estimate the baseline, natural 
and current visibility conditions of those Class I areas. See 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(2). There are no Class I areas within the State of Indiana. 
Therefore, this element does not apply to Indiana.

C. RPGs

    Class I states must set RPGs that achieve reasonable progress 
toward achieving natural visibility conditions. Indiana does not have 
any Class I areas, so it does not need to set any RPGs. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1). The states with Class I areas took the lead in 
establishing RPGs. Indiana consulted with Class I states by 
participating in the discussions (meetings and conference calls) with 
MRPO and RPOs outside the Midwest to ensure it achieves its share of 
emission reductions as those Class I states determine RPGs. In Appendix 
9c, of Indiana's Regional Haze SIP, the Lake Michigan Air Directors 
Consortium (LADCO) document ``Reasonable Progress for Class I Areas in 
the Northern Midwest--Factor Analysis'' (July 18, 2007), addresses 
factor analysis to establish RPG toward achieving natural visibility 
conditions in mandatory Class I areas. In addition, Appendix 9b of 
LADCO'S Technical Support Document ``Regional Air Quality Analyses for 
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze: Final Technical Support 
Document,'' provides additional information related to Indiana's 
emissions and visibility contributions and a detailed discussion of the 
measures needed to achieve Indiana's share of emission reductions. 
Indiana has satisfied this requirement.

D. BART

    Indiana began the BART rulemaking process in August 2006. Following 
its rulemaking, which included the notices of hearings and comments, 
Indiana adopted 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), Article 26, Rule 
1, Best Available Retrofit Technology, on October 3, 2007; it became 
effective February 22, 2008.
    Indiana conducted a BART analysis using the criteria in the BART 
Guidance. Using available source emissions and construction date 
information, Indiana developed a list of 32 BART-eligible sources 
within the BART source categories by county.
    Indiana then applied the results of the screening modeling 
conducted by the MRPO to determine which BART-eligible sources have 
significant impacts on any Class I area and thus warrant being subject 
to BART requirements. In accordance with EPA's recommendation Indiana 
defined ``significant impact'' as an impact of at least 0.5 deciviews. 
By this means, Indiana identified the following non-EGUs as subject to 
BART: Alcoa Inc., ESSROC Cement Corporation, SABIC Innovative Plastics 
(formerly GE Plastics), and Mittal Steel USA Inc.-Burns Harbor. Indiana 
did not consider EGUs in its analysis as it decided to rely on these 
sources' participation in the CAIR to address the BART requirements for 
SO2 and NOX emissions from these sources, and a 
modeling analysis demonstrated that particulate matter impacts from 
EGUs at

[[Page 3981]]

Class I areas were insignificant and did not warrant further control.
    Indiana further analyzed the four non-EGU facilities to determine 
which sources are subject to BART. Additional more refined modeling 
analyses submitted for three of the four non-EGU sources (ESSROC Cement 
Corporation, SABIC Innovative Plastics, and Mittal Steel USA Inc.--
Burns Harbor) showed that they did not contribute significantly to the 
visibility impairment at any Class I areas, so that these sources may 
be exempted from the BART requirement under the regional haze rule. 
Modeling of these facilities indicated that just one source, Alcoa of 
Warrick County, is subject to BART.
Alcoa, Inc.--BART Determination and Modeling Analysis
    Indiana submitted a BART analysis, prepared by Alcoa, which 
analyzed BART and alternative BART control strategies. Before beginning 
the five factor case-by-case BART analysis, Alcoa performed a baseline 
visibility impact analysis for each of the years 2001-2003 using the 
CALPUFF model with emission rates based on the 24-hour average actual 
emissions from the highest emitting day. The initial screening model 
projected the highest visibility impact at Mammoth Cave National Park 
(MCNP). Other Class I areas screened included Mingo Wilderness Area, 
Sipsey Wilderness Area, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Joyce 
Kilmer--Slick Rock Wilderness Area, Cohutta Wilderness Area, and 
Shining Rock Wilderness Area. The impact at MCNP exceeded 0.5 dv. Since 
the visibility impact was highest at MCNP, the BART analysis focused on 
the impact at MCNP.
    Alcoa identified 18 ingot furnaces, three boilers (Boilers 
2, 3, and 4), and five aluminum refining furnaces 
(Potlines 2-6) as meeting BART eligibility criteria. Boilers 2 
and 3 are classified as industrial boilers. Boiler 4 
is classified as an EGU, and, under Indiana's plan, is addressed by 
CAIR for SO2 and NOX in conjunction with other 
EGUs in the state. Thus, the BART analysis for boiler 4 will 
only address PM emissions.
    After proposing determinations of BART for its BART-subject units, 
Alcoa proposed an alternative strategy which compensates for less 
stringent limits at selected BART-subject units by imposing more 
restrictive limits at a non-BART-subject unit at the facility. In most 
respects, Indiana's SIP submittal reflects the BART determinations and 
the alternative strategy that Alcoa proposed. Tables 1 and 2 show 
summaries of the BART determinations and the alternative BART control 
strategy that Alcoa proposed.

             Table 1--Alcoa's Proposed BART Control Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Emission unit                 BART            Alternative BART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler 1....................  Not a BART-subject    ....................
                               unit
PM..........................  ....................  Electrostatic
                                                     Precipitator (ESP).
SO2.........................  ....................  Wet Flue Gas
                                                     Desulfurization
                                                     (FGD) with 91%
                                                     emission reduction
                                                     efficiency.
NOX.........................  ....................  Low NOX Burners
                                                     (LNB) with staged
                                                     over-fire air
                                                     (OFA).
Boilers 2 and 3:
    PM......................  ESP.................  ESP.
    SO2.....................  Wet FGD with 92%      Wet FGD with 90%
                               emission reduction    emission reduction
                               efficiency.           efficiency.
    NOX.....................  LNB with staged OFA.  LNB with staged over-
                                                     fire air OFA.
Boiler 4-PM.................  ESP.................  ESP.
Potlines (2-6):
--Fugitive emissions:
    PM......................  No add-on control...  No add-on control.
--Primary emissions:
    PM......................  Gas treatment system  Gas treatment system
                               followed by fabric    followed by fabric
                               filter.               filter.
    SO2.....................  Limit anode grade     Limit anode grade
                               coke to 3% sulfur.    coke to 3.5%
                                                     sulfur.
    NOX.....................  No add-on control...  No add-on control
                              No add-on control...  No add-on control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


             Table 2--Alcoa's Proposed BART Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Compliance
        Emission unit            Emission limit     demonstration method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boiler 1....................  Not a Bart-eligible   ....................
                               unit.
PM (filterable).............  0.03 lb/MMBtu, 24-    Continuous emission
                               hour daily average.   monitoring system
                                                     (CEMS) at the
                                                     scrubber outlet
                                                     according to 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, following
                                                     Appendix B, PS-11.
SO2.........................  91% reduction, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   inlet and outlet
                                                     according to 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, following
                                                     Appendix B, PS-2.
NOX.........................  0.38 lb/MMBtu, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   outlet following PS-
                                                     2.
Boilers 2 and 3:
    PM (filterable).........  0.03 lb/MMBtu, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   outlet according to
                                                     40 CFR part 60,
                                                     following Appendix
                                                     B, PS-11.
    SO2.....................  90% reduction, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   inlet and outlet
                                                     according to 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, following
                                                     Appendix B, PS-2.
    NOX.....................  0.38 lb/MMBtu, 24-    CEMS at the scrubber
                               hour daily average.   outlet following PS-
                                                     2.
Boiler 4:
    PM (filterable and        0.1 lb/MMBtu........  40 CFR part 60,
     sulfuric acid).                                 Appendix A, Method
                                                     5.
Potlines (2-6):
    PM (filterable).........  0.005 grains/scf, 24- 40 CFR part 60,
                               hour daily average.   Appendix A, Method
                                                     5.

[[Page 3982]]

 
    SO2.....................  The sulfur content    ASTM D3177-02,
                               in each monthly       modified by adding
                               baked anode           saturated bromine
                               composite shall not   water before the pH
                               exceed 2.919%,        adjustment.
                               provided however      Alternatively,
                               that hourly SO2       determination of
                               emissions from the    sulfur content by x-
                               potlines shall not    ray fluorescence.
                               exceed 1,456 lbs/hr
                               on a combined
                               basis, and
                               determined on a
                               monthly basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Tables 1 and 2, Alcoa recommended that it be subject to 
an alternative set of control requirements in lieu of being required to 
implement BART at each BART-subject unit. This alternative would 
provide additional control of emissions from boiler 1 beyond 
that required in the baseline years, sufficient to compensate for 
allowing more SO2 emissions from the potlines and from 
boilers 2 and 3. Thus, Indiana determined 
SO2 BART (utilizing wet limestone flue gas desulfurization) 
for Boilers 2 and 3 as 92 percent reduction, but it 
adopted requirements to control SO2 emissions from these 
boilers by 90% as an alternative. According to the discussion in 
Chapter 8, and Appendix 5, of the State of Indiana Regional Haze SIP, 
Indiana determined that BART for the potlines consists of the use of 
anode grade coke containing 3 percent sulfur, which is higher than the 
current Indiana rule that limits sulfur in the coke to no more than 2 
percent. The alternative strategy recommended by Alcoa allows the use 
of coke containing 3.5 percent sulfur. To compensate for these less 
stringent limits, Alcoa's alternative strategy requires that the source 
control SO2 emissions from Boiler 1 by 91 percent 
and control NOX emissions to meet limit of 0.38 pounds/
Million British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu) for boilers 1, i.e., 
the same limit as applies to boilers 2 and 3 
(utilizing low NOX burners and over-fire air). For 
particulate emissions, Indiana determined that BART represents use of 
electrostatic precipitators with an emission limit equal to 0.03 lbs/
MMBtu for boilers 2 and 3. Indiana determined that 
the particulate emission limit representing BART for boiler 4 
is 0.015 lbs/MMBtu, with an alternative limit for this boiler as 0.10 
lbs/MMBtu.
    Indiana's submittal nominally follows Alcoa's recommendation. 
Nevertheless, Indiana's submittal does not change the SO2 
emission limits that apply to Alcoa's potlines. Therefore, EPA views 
Indiana's submittal as mandating a BART strategy for Alcoa that in fact 
includes status quo limits of potline SO2 emissions.
    In any case, EPA does not agree that an increase in sulfur content 
of coke used in the potlines at Alcoa's Warrick County facility, as 
opposed to a decrease in the sulfur content and thus in the emissions 
from these units, represents BART at these units. Furthermore, neither 
the company nor the state has provided evidence that this relaxation of 
limits on SO2 emissions from these units does not interfere 
with attainment and maintenance of applicable SO2 air 
quality standards, in contravention of Clean Air Act section 110(l). On 
the other hand, Indiana's submittal contains no rule revisions or 
permit provisions that would in fact implement any relaxation of limits 
on the SO2 emissions from these units. Therefore, 
notwithstanding the discussion suggesting that Indiana supports an 
increase in these limits, the actual plan reflects continuation of the 
existing limits without relaxation. That is, EPA considers Indiana's 
regional haze plan to reflect the current SO2 emission 
limits for the potlines, not the relaxed limits discussed in Indiana's 
submittal. For each potline 2-6 the S02 emission 
limit is 195.2 pounds/hour at the stack, and 21.7 pounds/hour for each 
roof monitor associated with the potline.
    Viewing Indiana's plan in that manner, EPA is satisfied with 
Indiana's alternative strategy for Alcoa. Modeling conducted by Indiana 
shows that the alternative achieves greater visibility improvement than 
BART, equal to 75 percent more reduction in deciviews over the 
baseline. The alternative BART, though it achieves greater reductions 
in all pollutants (PM, SO2, and NOX); and most 
notably achieves significantly higher reductions in SO2 
emissions, equal to approximately 21,600 tons more than BART. The 
resulting emission limits are adopted by Indiana into the Indiana's 
regional haze SIP submittal, and will be included in the facilities' 
Part 70 permit for each unit subject to BART.
    Under the CAA, BART is required for any BART-eligible source that 
emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area. 
Accordingly, for stationary sources meeting these criteria, states must 
address the BART requirement when they develop their Regional Haze 
SIPs. On November 3, 2010, the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board 
adopted as final Indiana BART Rule, 326 IAC 26-2, to establish BART 
emission limitations in order to comply with the RHR. Indiana's 
Regional Haze SIP includes a copy of rule 326 IAC Article 26-2 in 
Appendix 7.

E. LTS

    As described in III. E of this action, the LTS is a compilation of 
state-specific control measures relied on by the state for achieving 
its RPGs. The LTS must include enforceable emissions limitations, 
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
RPGs for all Class I areas affected by Indiana emissions.
    Indiana consulted with Class I states on the development of RPGs 
through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated consultations with 
other Midwest states and with states in other regions through inter-RPO 
processes. By coordinating with the MRPO and other RPOs, Indiana has 
worked to ensure that its LTS provides sufficient emission reductions 
to mitigate impacts of sources from Indiana on affected Class I areas. 
Indiana believes that existing control programs will adequately address 
Indiana's impact on Class I areas. Thus, continued implementation of 
the control programs will satisfy the long-term strategy requirements.
    MPRO considered existing on-highway mobile source, off-highway 
mobile source, area source, power plant, and other point source 
programs as the existing control programs in its analysis. Indiana 
included a technical support document (TSD) produced by MRPO in its 
submission that details the analysis. Overall, emissions from Indiana 
and the Midwest, as a whole, are reduced significantly over this time, 
illustrating that Indiana is making appropriate progress toward 
reducing emissions.
    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR identifies seven factors that 
each state must consider in developing its LTS. The state must 
consider: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) Measures to mitigate 
impact from construction activities; (3) Emissions limitations and 
schedules for

[[Page 3983]]

compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) Source retirement and replacement 
schedules; (5) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and 
forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within 
the State for these purposes; (6) Enforceability of emissions 
limitations and control measures; and (7) The anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
    Indiana relied on MPRO's modeling and analysis along with its 
emission information in developing a LTS. Indiana consulted with Class 
I states through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated 
consultations with other Midwest states and with states in other 
regions through inter-RPO processes. Indiana considered the factors set 
out in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) in developing its LTS. Based on these 
factors and the MRPO's technical analysis, in conjunction with RPGs 
that were set by the pertinent states in consultation with Indiana and 
other states, Indiana concludes that existing control programs 
adequately address Indiana's impact on Class I areas and suffice to 
meet their RPGs by 2018 by implementing the control programs already in 
place. These existing control programs include Federal motor vehicle 
emission control program, reformulated gasoline, emission limits for 
area sources of VOCs, Title IV, the NOX SIP Call, new source 
review permitting program, Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
standards, and Federal non-road standards for construction equipment 
and vehicles. Furthermore, Indiana has open burning rules and its 
Department of Natural Resources has the authority to ban outdoor 
burning if necessary. Indiana noted in its submission that the state 
has a smoke management plan that complements its open burning rules, 
under Indiana Code 13-17-9 and rule 326 IAC Article 4-1. Significantly, 
Indiana's LTS also relies on CAIR. In rulemaking published on December 
30, 2011, at 76 FR 82219, EPA proposed to disapprove the BART plans and 
LTS's for Indiana and several other states because CAIR cannot be 
considered to provide permanently enforceable emission reductions.
    As noted in EPA's separate notice proposing revisions to the RHR 
(76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011), a number of states, including 
Indiana, fully consistent with EPA's regulations at the time, relied on 
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals. In that notice, we proposed a 
limited disapproval of Indiana's long-term strategy based on its 
reliance on CAIR. Comments on that proposed determination may be 
directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. We are proposing to 
find that the remaining elements of Indiana's long-term strategy meet 
the requirements of the RHR.

F. Comments

    Indiana took comments on its proposed regional haze plan. It held a 
public hearing on January 11, 2011, which concluded the public comment 
period. As part of the consultation process, Indiana also received 
comments from the FLMs which were presented at Indiana's public 
hearing.
    Indiana provided the comments it received and its responses with 
its plan. Indiana revised portions of its plan in response to comments 
received. EPA considers that Indiana has satisfied this requirement.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of revisions to the Indiana SIP 
submitted by IDEM on January 11, 2011, and March 10, 2011, addressing 
regional haze for the first implementation period. The revisions seek 
to address CAA and regional haze rule requirements for states to remedy 
any existing anthropogenic and prevent future impairment of visibility 
at Class I areas.
    Indiana's plan satisfies a number of elements of the regional haze 
requirements. Indiana's plan identifies the Class I areas that the 
state's emissions affect. Indiana demonstrates that the state has 
consulted with other states as appropriate in establishing reasonable 
progress goals and identifying the reductions need in Indiana to meet 
those goals. Indiana's plan meets the requirement for BART for non-EGUs 
and for particulate matter emissions from EGUs. For these reasons, and 
for the SIP strengthening effect of Indiana's plan, EPA is proposing 
limited approval of Indiana's plan.
    In addition to the above actions, EPA is proposing to approve 
regulation 326 IAC Article 26, Rule 2 into Indiana's SIP which 
incorporates BART emission limitations in order for sources to comply 
with EPA's Regional Haze Rule.
    It should be noted that rule 326 IAC Article 26-2 contains an 
erroneous citation, citing limits in 326 IAC 7-4-10(a)(4) rather than 
326 IAC 7-4-10(a)(3). EPA nevertheless finds the rule approvable for 
several reasons: (1) The pertinent limits are already an approved part 
of Indiana's SIP and are therefore already enforceable; (2) the State's 
intent is clear; and (3) Indiana intends to correct this referencing.
    In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited 
disapproval of the Indiana regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in 
the state's regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA 
of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 76 FR 82219, December 30, 
2011. Consequently, we are not taking action in this notice to address 
the state's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze 
requirements.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

[[Page 3984]]

     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 17, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-1604 Filed 1-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


