Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze, 46911-46928 [2012-19039]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46911-46928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19039]



[[Page 46911]]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 151

August 6, 2012

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 52





Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal 
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 151 / Monday, August 6, 2012 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 46912]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0954; FRL-9709-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Michigan; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal 
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and a limited disapproval 
of a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted 
by the State of Michigan on November 5, 2010, that addresses regional 
haze for the first implementation period ending in 2018. EPA is 
proposing limited approval of this submittal for meeting requirements 
of the regional haze program relating to setting reasonable progress 
goals, providing reductions for meeting those goals, and for mandating 
best available retrofit technology (BART) for most sources in the 
State. EPA is proposing limited disapproval of the State's submittal 
for failing to satisfy BART for two sources. EPA is proposing a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) including nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emission limits on these two sources to satisfy these requirements.
    EPA has already published a separate action in relation to 
Michigan's plan to address BART for electric generating units. In a 
June 7, 2012, action, EPA published a limited disapproval of the 
regional haze plans for Michigan and other states due to their reliance 
on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), but EPA also promulgated a FIP 
relying on EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address 
these requirements. EPA is also taking separate action on BART 
requirements for one source, a taconite plant owned by Tilden Mining, 
in conjunction with action on several taconite plants in Minnesota. 
These three actions combined represent complete action on Michigan's 
regional haze plan for the first implementation period.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2012. Upon 
request, a public hearing for this proposal will be held on September 
19, 2012, at the Traverse Area District Library at 610 Woodmere Avenue, 
Traverse City, Michigan. Requests for a public hearing must be 
submitted by September 5, 2012 and shall be submitted to Pamela Blakley 
at blakley.pamela@epa.gov or by any of the other means for submitting 
comments given in the addressee section below. The public hearing, if 
requested, will be held from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. or until all parties 
present have had the opportunity to speak. EPA shall maintain a Web 
site at https://www.epa.gov/region5/mihaze/ at which EPA will 
report whether a hearing has been requested and will be held. 
Interested parties may also call Charles Hatten, at 312-886-6031, to 
inquire whether a hearing will be held.
    The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity 
to present information and opinions to EPA concerning our proposal. 
Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in 
the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted 
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as 
oral comments and supporting information presented at the public 
hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearing. 
When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to 
all oral and written comments received on our proposal.
    At the public hearing, the hearing officer may limit the time 
available for each commenter to address the proposal to 5 minutes or 
less if the hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will 
not be providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or 
make computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written 
or oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the Public 
Hearing. Verbatim transcripts, in English, of the hearing and written 
statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0954, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0954. 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 Charles Hatten at (312) 886-6031 before 
visiting the Region 5 office.

[[Page 46913]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, at 312-886-6031, 
hatten.charles@epa.gov, regarding all elements of the action, or John 
Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, at 312-886-6067, summerhays.john@epa.gov, 
regarding issues relating to BART. Both contacts may be reached by mail 
at Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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?
    A. The Regional Haze Problem
    B. Regional Haze Requirements
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
    A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibilty 
Conditions
    B. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
    C. BART
    D. Long Term Strategy
    E. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI
    F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan 
Requirements
    G. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Michigan's regional haze plan?
    A. Class I Areas
    B. Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions
    C. Reasonable Progress Goals
    D. BART
    E. Long Term Strategy
    F. Monitoring Strategy
    G. Comments
V. What are EPA's proposed BART determinations?
    A. Saint Mary's Cement
    B. NewPage Paper
VI. What actions is EPA proposing?
VII. 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 which are located across a broad 
geographic area and that emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 
sulfates, nitrates, organic particles, elemental carbon, and soil dust) 
and their precursors--sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, 
and in some cases ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic 
compound (VOCs). PM2.5 precursors react in the atmosphere to 
form fine particulate matter. Aerosol PM2.5 impairs 
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment 
reduces clarity and the 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 Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act 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). The 
term ``Class I area'' means a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regional Haze Requirements

    In section 169A of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977, Congress 
created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national 
parks and wilderness areas. This section of the Clean Air Act 
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 Clean Air Act in 1990 to address 
regional haze issues, and EPA promulgated the regional haze rule on 
July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The regional haze rule, which amended 40 
CFR part 50, subpart P, integrated provisions addressing regional haze 
impairment into the existing visibility regulations and established a 
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The 
regional haze requirements, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are a 
part of EPA's subpart P visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 
51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements 
are summarized in section III of this preamble. The requirement to 
submit a regional haze plan applies to all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. The first regional haze plans were 
due December 17, 2007.

[[Page 46914]]

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.
    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 emissions of 
PM2.5 and other pollutants that lead 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 Clean Air Act and EPA's implementing 
regulations require states to establish long term strategies for making 
reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. States must also give 
specific attention in their plans to certain stationary sources that 
were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before 
August 7, 1962, and require those sources to install BART for 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 regional haze rule establishes the deciview (dv) as the 
principal metric or unit for expressing visibility impairment. The 
deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals, defining 
baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in 
visibility. 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. 
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. The preamble 
to the regional haze rule provides additional details about the 
deciview. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
    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 regional haze rule 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 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 
under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located 
at https://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 https://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 plans, 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 subsequent 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 national goal of the regional haze rule is a return to natural 
conditions such that anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no 
longer impair visibility in Class I areas. The regional haze plans 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 vehicle for 
ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility 
goal is the submission of a series of regional haze plans that for each 
approximately 10-year implementation period establish two distinct 
reasonable progress goals: one for the best days and one for the worst 
days for every Class I area. The regional haze rule 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 reasonable progress 
goals, 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 
reasonable progress goals, but in establishing a reasonable progress 
goal for any mandatory Class I area are required to consider the 
following factors

[[Page 46915]]

established in section 169A of the Clean Air Act and in EPA's regional 
haze rule 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 Class I states 
must demonstrate in their plans how they considered these factors when 
selecting the reasonable progress goals for the best and worst days for 
each 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, Regions 1-10 (pp.4-2, 5-1). 
In setting the reasonable progress goals, 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 regional haze plan. In setting 
reasonable progress goals, each Class I state must also consult with 
potentially contributing states, i.e. those states that may affect 
visibility impairment at its Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(iv).

C. BART

    Section 169A of the Clean Air Act directs states to evaluate the 
use of retrofit controls at certain types of major stationary sources 
to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, Clean 
Air Act section 169A(b)(2) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 
51.308(e) require 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 
Clean Air Act 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. 
Section IV(F)(1) of the BART Guidelines provides that a state must use 
the approach in the BART Guidelines in making a BART determination for 
a fossil fuel-fired electric generating unit (EGU) with total 
generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. States are encouraged, 
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART 
determinations for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOx, and PM. EPA 
has stated that states should use their best judgment in determining 
whether VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility in Class I 
areas.
    States may select de minimis impact levels 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 each source's impact.
    The state must document its BART control determination analyses. In 
making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the Clean Air Act 
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 
plan must require that BART controls be installed and placed 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. Clean 
Air Act section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to 
what is required by the regional haze rule, 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 regional haze rule also allows states to implement an 
alternative program in lieu of BART if a state can demonstrate that the 
alternative program will achieve greater progress toward the national 
visibility goal than implementing BART controls. EPA made such a 
demonstration for CAIR in regulations issued in 2005 which revised 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 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 required to conduct a 
BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that 
pollutant.
    However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit held that CAIR was inconsistent with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act and remanded the rule 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 
CSAPR in August 2011.
    On June 7, 2012, EPA found that the trading programs in CSAPR 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. 77 FR 33642. Based on this finding, EPA revised the 
regional haze plans of Michigan and other states to meet the 
requirements of BART for SO2 and NOX for EGUs by 
participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule.

D. Long Term Strategy

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the Clean Air 
Act that states include in their regional haze SIP a 10- to 15-year 
strategy for making reasonable progress, 51.308(d)(3) requires that 
states include a long term strategy in their regional haze SIPs. The 
long term strategy is the compilation of all control measures a state 
will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP 
submission to meet applicable reasonable progress goals. The long term 
strategy must include enforceable emissions limitations,

[[Page 46916]]

compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals for all Class I areas within or affected by 
emissions from the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    The regional haze rule requires that, 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 impacted state must 
coordinate with the contributing states 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 reasonable progress goals 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 long term strategies, 
including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, 
states must describe how they have taken each of the seven factors 
listed below into account in developing their long term strategies. 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 reasonable 
progress goal; (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 long term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI

    As part of the regional haze rule, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), 
regarding the long term strategy 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 long term 
strategy for addressing RAVI and regional haze on or before this date. 
It must also submit the first such coordinated long term strategy with 
its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated long term strategies, 
and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards reasonable 
progress goals, 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 long term 
strategy must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision and report on both 
regional haze and RAVI impairment.

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The regional haze rule at 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 Federal areas within the state. 
The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required 
in 40 CFR 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 reasonable 
progress goals 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 that 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 regional haze rule at 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires that states 
submit control strategies to cover an initial implementation period 
extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and 
revision addressing the core requirements of section 51.308(d) (not 
including BART) every 10 years thereafter. 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). 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

    The regional haze rule requires that states consult with Federal 
Land Managers (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 reasonable 
progress goals 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 Michigan's regional haze plan?

    Michigan submitted its regional haze plan on November 5, 2010, 
which included requested revisions to the Michigan SIP to address 
regional haze.

A. Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I 
areas within a

[[Page 46917]]

state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be affected by 
that state's emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Michigan has two Class I 
areas, Isle Royal National Park and the Seney Wilderness Area, within 
the state. Michigan is responsible for developing a regional haze plan 
that addresses these Class I areas and for consulting with states that 
affect its areas as well as for addressing its impact on Class I areas 
in other states.
    Michigan reviewed technical analyses conducted by MRPO and other 
RPOs to determine what Class I areas outside the state are affected by 
Michigan emission sources. MRPO conducted both a back trajectory 
analysis and modeling to determine the effects of its states' 
emissions. Michigan also used assessments by MANE-VU, the regional 
planning organization for Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states. The 
conclusion from these technical analyses is that Michigan emissions 
affect five Class I areas outside Michigan. These affected Class I 
areas are: Acadia National Park and Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine; 
Great Gulf Wilderness Area in New Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area 
in New Jersey; and the Lye Brook Wilderness Area in Vermont. Michigan 
has thereby satisfied the requirement to identify the Class I areas it 
affects.

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The regional haze rule requires Class I states to determine the 
baseline, current, and natural conditions for their Class I areas. This 
information defines the rate of visibility improvement that would 
represent linear progress toward elimination of anthropogenic 
visibility impairment by 2064, also known as the uniform rate of 
progress, and helps the states define their reasonable progress goals.
    Natural background visibility is estimated by calculating the 
expected light extinction using estimates of natural concentrations of 
pollutants adjusted by an estimate of humidity. EPA allows states to 
use either an original IMPROVE algorithm or a refined IMPROVE 
algorithm. Michigan used the refined IMPROVE algorithm.
    Data from 2000 to 2004 were used to calculate the impairment on the 
20 percent best and 20 percent worst visibility days at Isle Royale 
National Park and Seney Wilderness Area. The goal of the regional haze 
program is to achieve natural conditions by 2064. Table 1 shows the 
baseline conditions and natural conditions that Michigan determined for 
both Isle Royale and Seney for both the 20 percent most impaired days 
and the 20 percent least impaired days, as well as showing the 
calculation of the visibility that would be achieved by 2018 under the 
scenario of achieving the targeted uniform rate of progress.

    Table 1--Baseline, Natural, and Linear Progress Visibility Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   20 percent most impaired visibility      Isle Royale        Seney
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline conditions.....................        21.59 dv       23.37 dv.
Natural conditions......................        12.36 dv       12.65 dv.
Difference..............................         9.23 dv       11.50 dv.
Annual difference with linear progress..         0.15 dv        0.19 dv.
2018 value with linear progress.........        19.43 dv       21.64 dv.
20 percent least impaired days            ..............  ..............
Baseline conditions.....................         6.77 dv        7.14 dv.
Natural conditions......................         3.72 dv        3.73 dv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Michigan does not expect degradation of the visibility on 20 
percent best days, so no calculation is needed as the 2018 goals match 
the baseline. EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance states that the 
uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive target for the reasonable 
progress goal. Class I states can set the reasonable progress goal at 
the uniform rate of progress or it can set the reasonable progress goal 
at greater or lesser visibility impairment.

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

    Class I states must set reasonable progress goals that achieve 
reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions. 
Michigan consulted with Class I states on the development of reasonable 
progress goals through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated 
consultations with other Midwest states and with states in other 
regions through inter-RPO process. By coordinating with the MRPO and 
other RPOs, Michigan has worked to ensure that it achieves its fair 
share of overall emission reductions necessary to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals of Class I areas that it affects, including 
Isle Royale and Seney Wilderness Area.
    Michigan, the MRPO, and the Northern Class I consultation group 
worked together to establish reasonable progress goals. These groups 
first identified and prioritized sources that contribute to the worst 
visibility days and to establish the relative visibility impairment 
affects. The group determined that the priority emission sources are 
SO2 point sources, NOX from both point and 
mobiles sources, and ammonia from agricultural operations. EC/R, 
Incorporated (ECR), a contractor for the MRPO, further evaluated these 
sources on a three-state and nine-state basis. Michigan identified 
regional SO2 emissions from EGUs as a key contributor to 
visibility impairment for Isle Royale National Park and Seney 
Wilderness Area. Michigan's regional haze plan identified the top ten 
contributing in-state sources to visibility impairment at Isle Royale 
and at Seney based on modeling and on the ratio of emissions to 
distance (``Q/d''). (See Tables 10.3.2.a and 10.3.2.b in Michigan's 
submittal, addressing Isle Royale and Seney, respectively.) Michigan 
also provided list of the top 30 facilities, including facilities both 
within and outside the state, ranked according to their impacts on Isle 
Royale and Seney. (See Tables 10.3.2.c and 10.3.2.d in Michigan's 
submittal, addressing Isle Royale and Seney, respectively.)
    The second step of the process was to identify control options for 
the priority sources. Michigan, the MRPO, and the Northern Class I 
consultation group identified existing control measures including CAIR, 
BART, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, on-road 
mobile source programs, and non-road mobile source programs. MRPO 
examined different potential control scenarios, including two control 
levels for EGUs and two control levels for industrial, commercial, and 
institutional (ICI) boilers.
    The third step of the process was to assess the effect of existing 
control programs on priority sources. The impact of existing programs 
is discussed

[[Page 46918]]

in the ECR report. Table 2, below, replicated from Table 10.3.2.e. of 
Michigan's haze plan, which in turn used results from the ECR report, 
indicates results of the four factors for already existing controls.

                                                          Table 2--Summary of Michigan's Four-Factor Analysis of On-the-Books Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Factor 1                                           Factor 2
                                                    Factor 3                        Factor 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cost effectiveness       Percent emission reductions from
Control strategy................  ($/ton).................          2002 baseline in 2018
                                     Percent emission reductions from 2002     .................     Solid waste     .................
                                         baseline at full implementation       Energy...........    produced (1000   Remaining useful
                                                                                                       tons/yr)       life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAIR and other cap-trade          $720-$2,600.............  3-state SO2:       13%..............  3-state SO2:       47%                4.5% of total      2,383............  The IPM model
 programs (e.g., acid rain, NOX                             NOX:               75%..............  NOX:               75%..............   energy consumed.                      projects that 53
 SIP call.                                                  9-state SO2:       34%..............  9-state SO2:       48%..............                                         units will retire
                                                            NOX:               79%..............  NOX:               80%..............                                         by 2018.
BART: Based on Company BART       $248-$1,770.............
 analyses from MN and ND for non-
 EGUs.
Combustion MACTs................  $1,477-$7,611...........  9-state SO2:       10%..............  9-state SO2:       10%
                                                            NOX:               5%...............  NOX:               5%...............
Highway vehichle programs.......  $1,300-$2,300...........  3-state NOX:       83%..............  3-state NOX:       83%..............
                                                            9-state SO2:       80%..............  9-state SO2:       80%..............
Nonroad mobile sources..........  ($1,000)-$1,000.........  3-state NOX:       39%..............  3-state NOX:       39%..............  350 MM gallons of
                                                                                                                                         fuel saved.
                                                            9-state SO2:       27%..............  9-state SO2:       27%..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3, replicated from Table 10.3.2.f of Michigan's submittal, 
shows the change in deciview predicted from already existing controls, 
including CAIR.

 Table 3--Comparison of the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) in 2018 With Projected Impacts for Existing Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Estimated visibility impairment on the 20% worst visibility
                                                                       days (deciviews) \a\
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Boundary                       Isle Royale        Seney
                                                      waters         Voyageurs      Nat'l Park      Wilderness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline conditions (2000-2004).................           19.86           19.48           21.62           24.48
Projected conditions in 2018 with on-the-books             18.94           19.18           20.04           22.38
 controls \b\...................................
Net change......................................            0.92            0.30            1.58            2.1
Glide path/URP..................................           17.7            17.56           19.21           21.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The baseline condition values reflect the recent adjustments proposed by the Midwest RPO to include several
  missing days. The adjusted values are, on average, less than 0.5 dv greater than those provided on the IMPROVE
  Web site.
\b\ Based on CAMX modeling by the MRPO. These modeling analyses used preliminary estimates of the impacts of
  BART controls, which are generally larger than the impacts estimated in industry BART analyses.

    The fourth step of the process is to evaluate which control options 
may be reasonable for priority sources. Again, many of the sources were 
evaluated in the ECR report. The northern Class I areas Consultation 
Group further considered the MRPO EGU scenario with limits on EGU 
emissions of 0.15 pounds per million British Thermal Units (/
MMBTU) for SO2 and 0.10 /MMBTU for NOX 
by 2013 and the ICI boiler option with a 40 percent reduction in 
SO2 emissions and a 60 percent reduction in NOX 
emissions by 2013. In order to realize significant visibility 
improvement at Michigan's two Class I areas, EGUs are clearly the top 
priority source category for both NOX and SO2 
control. Since all EGUs were subject to CAIR, Michigan concluded that 
no further controls on EGUs should be considered reasonable for 
purposes of reasonable progress at this time. By separate rulemaking, 
published June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 33642, EPA has promulgated a revision 
to Michigan's plan to include the reductions of CSAPR in the state's 
long term strategy, for reasonable progress as well as for BART 
purposes.
    A number of non-EGU facilities also have significant impact on 
Michigan's two Class I areas, as identified in its plan. These 
facilities are subject to BART analysis, and Michigan has evaluate them 
to determine if additional controls represent BART. Those ICI boilers 
not addressed by BART may eventually be controlled further. Michigan, 
in conjunction with other MRPO states and a number of Northeast states, 
evaluated reasonable control levels for ICI boilers but concluded that 
regulation of these sources by individual states would be relatively 
ineffective in the absence of a regional program addressing the 
emissions of ICI boilers across much of the eastern United States. 
However, Michigan's plan takes into account the reductions anticipated 
from other Federal control measures such as Tier II mobile source 
standards, heavy-duty diesel engine standards, low sulfur fuel, and 
non-road mobile sources control programs.
    The final step of the process to determine the reasonable progress 
goals was to compare the control strategies to the uniform rate of 
progress. The computation of visibility levels that would be achieved 
by 2018 with linear progress toward the goal of no anthropogenic 
visibility impairment by 2064 is described above. Michigan included all 
control measures believed to be reasonable and compared the resulting 
visibility improvement to the uniform rate of progress. Michigan set 
the reasonable progress goals for Isle Royale at 20.86 dv for the worst 
20 percent of days and 6.76 dv for the best 20 percent of days in 2018. 
This annual 0.05 dv improvement rate would lead to achieving natural 
conditions on the worst 20 percent of days by 2181. The 2018 reasonable 
progress goal for Isle Royale provides less improvement than the linear 
progress benchmark of 19.21

[[Page 46919]]

dv. Michigan determined that the reasonable progress goals for Seney 
Wilderness Area are 23.58 dv for the worst 20 percent of days and 7.78 
dv for the best 20 percent of days in 2018. Projecting this 0.06 dv per 
year improvement into the future yields Voyageurs reaching natural 
conditions on the worst 20 percent of days in 2209. As was the case for 
Seney Wilderness Area, the 2018 reasonable progress goal for Voyageurs 
provides less improvement than the linear progress benchmark of 21.35 
dv. Nevertheless, Michigan considers the reasonable progress goals to 
reflect an appropriate visibility improvement based on implementation 
of a reasonable set of measures. Michigan detailed potential controls 
in Chapter 10 of its regional haze plan.
    Michigan consulted with other states to determine which other 
states' emissions contribute to visibility impairment in Michigan's 
Class I areas. The consultation also allowed Michigan to determine that 
in addition to contributions from its own sources, emissions from 
sources in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and North Dakota 
contribute to visibility impairment at Michigan's Class I areas, Isle 
Royale National Park and Seney Wilderness Area. Michigan identified the 
contributing states from MRPO's 2018 modeling-based source 
apportionment analysis. Other analyses from CENRAP and MRPO support the 
contribution determination. The pollutants and sources affecting Isle 
Royale National Park and Seney Wilderness Area are detailed in Chapter 
10 of the Michigan's regional haze plan.
    Michigan consulted with the FLMs during the development of its 
regional haze plan. Michigan sent several drafts of its regional haze 
SIP for comments to the FLMs between 2007 and May 2010, prior to the 
public hearing held on June 29, 2010. In response to this solicitation, 
Michigan received comments from the FLMs and from EPA Region 5. A 
summary of the comments and Michigan's responses are included in 
Appendix 2A of its submittal. Michigan has committed to continue to 
consult with the FLMs as it develops future SIP revisions and progress 
reports.
    Michigan participated in meetings and conference calls with 
affected Class I states and RPOs. Michigan consulted with Minnesota on 
their Class I areas. Michigan also participated in MRPO's inter-RPO 
consultations and MANE-VU. MANE-VU, the RPO for the northeastern 
states, facilitated consultation between Michigan and Maine, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont.
    Michigan also participated in the northern Class I area 
consultation process as part of the process to establish a long term 
strategy for regional haze. This consultation process included the 
states of Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, 
Indiana, and Missouri and representatives from other governments, such 
as the Ontario Ministry of Environment and tribes including the Leech 
Lake Band of Ojibwe, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Band of 
Lake Superior Chippewa, Grand Portage Band of Chippewa, Upper/Lower 
Sioux, and Huron Potawatomi. The consultation process also included 
representatives from federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of 
the Interior National Park Service and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Forest Service, as well as representatives from the EPA.
    Michigan included the MRPO regional haze technical support document 
(TSD) in its submission. In Section 5 of the TSD, MRPO assessed the 
reasonable progress using the four factors required by 40 CFR 51.308(d) 
the regional haze rule, specifically, the cost of compliance, time 
needed for compliance, energy and non-air impacts, and remaining useful 
life.
    In analyzing the visibility benefits of existing programs, MRPO 
considered existing on-highway mobile source, off-highway mobile 
source, area source, power plant, and other point source programs. MRPO 
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. MRPO 
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.
    Michigan 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 reasonable progress goals. 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 reasonable progress goals. On the other hand, EPA rulemaking 
published June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 33642, EPA promulgated provisions 
incorporating CSAPR into Michigan's SIP. EPA believes that with CSAPR 
providing the reductions that Michigan expects to obtain from CAIR, 
Michigan's long term strategy can in fact be expected to achieve the 
state-adopted reasonable progress goals that Michigan established. 
Furthermore, EPA proposes to agree with Michigan's conclusion, based on 
a review of the four factors, that the state's plan includes a 
reasonable set of measures that provide its appropriate share of 
reductions toward achieving reasonable progress goals.

D. BART

    Michigan developed rules that describe the process for determining 
BART and the applicability provisions. See Appendix 9A of regional haze 
plan. Michigan conducted a BART analysis using the criteria in the BART 
Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 40 CFR 51 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 to 
determine BART eligibility are: (1) The emissions unit fits within one 
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emissions 
unit was in existence prior to August 7, 1962, but was not in operation 
before August 7, 1962; and (3) the total potential emissions of any 
visibility-impairing pollutant from the subject units at a stationary 
source are 250 tons or more per year.
    Michigan relied on CAIR to satisfy BART requirements for EGUs for 
SO2 and NOX. Furthermore, a modeling analysis 
demonstrated that particulate matter impacts from EGUs at Class I areas 
were insignificant and did not warrant further control. Therefore, 
Michigan's assessment of sources subject to BART focused on non-EGUs. 
Using available source emissions and construction date information, 
Michigan identified 35 non-EGU facilities that were potentially subject 
to BART.
    Michigan worked with MRPO to perform source-specific analyses with 
CALPUFF model 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,

[[Page 46920]]

concluding that such a threshold provided an appropriate means of 
identifying which sources cause sufficient visibility impairment to 
warrant being subject to BART. By this means, Michigan identified the 
following six non-EGU sources subject to BART: Lafarge Midwest, Inc.; 
Smurfit Stone Container Corp.; St. Mary's Cement; New Page Paper; 
Tilden Mining Co.; and Empire Mining Company. More detail on Michigan's 
BART determinations is provided in appendix 9 of Michigan's regional 
haze plan.
    Subsequent to Michigan's identification of sources subject to BART 
requirements, Empire Mining provided new information that it had 
permanently shut down one furnace. With the resulting lower emissions, 
modeling for Empire Mining showed that the facility does not exceed the 
0.5 dv threshold BART level. Therefore, Michigan concluded that this 
facility is no longer subject to BART.
    EPA's review of Michigan's analysis concluded that Michigan applied 
appropriate analyses based on appropriate criteria for identifying 
sources subject to BART.
    The five non-EGU BART-eligible sources include two Portland cement 
plants, one taconite plant, and two paper products plants. Table 9.2.d 
of Michigan's regional haze plan includes a summary of the BART 
analysis submitted by the sources and Michigan's evaluation of 
potential BART options and proposed BART control strategies. More 
detailed information of BART controls and analysis submitted by the 
sources can be found in appendices 9C through 9J of Michigan's plan. 
The following discussion reviews Michigan's proposed BART 
determinations for these five sources.
(1) Lafarge Midwest, Inc.
    Lafarge Midwest, Inc. is a cement plant located in Alpena, 
Michigan. The BART subject emission units include five Portland cement 
manufacturing kilns: EU-KILN 19, EU-KILN 20, and EU-KILN 21 are part of 
Kiln Group 5 (KG 5); EU-KILN 22 and EU-KILN 23 are part of Kiln Group 6 
(KG 6).
    On March 18, 2010, Lafarge entered into a Global Settlement/Consent 
Decree (hereinafter Consent Decree) with the EPA and Michigan to reduce 
NOX and SO2 emissions at the Alpena facility 
along with other Lafarge facilities in the United States.
    The emission controls required by the Consent Decree include 
selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) for Kiln Groups KG 5 and KG 6 
for NOX control. For SO2 control, wet scrubbers 
for kiln group KG 6 and a Dry Absorption Addition system for Kiln Group 
KG 5 are required. These controls are consistent with the BART 
Guidelines to control visibility impairing pollutants (NOX 
and SO2) emissions. An additional control not included in 
the BART analysis but agreed to in the Consent Decree is the Dry 
Absorption Addition system for SO2 controls on KG 5. 
Michigan includes all controls contained in the Consent Decree, 
including the Dry Absorption Addition system, as part of the BART 
controls.
    The Lafarge Alpena facility will reduce NOX and 
SO2 according to the schedule and conditions given in the 
Consent Decree (see Appendix 9D). Beginning January 1, 2011, Lafarge 
was required to maintain an interim, facility-wide, 12-month rolling 
tonnage limit for NOX of 8,650 tons per year and 
SO2 at 13,100 tons per year. The final emission limits will 
be established according to the Consent Decree ``Control Technology 
Demonstration Requirements,'' as given in the Appendix of the Consent 
Decree. The control technology demonstration describes in detail a 
stepwise emission control optimization program to establish the 30-day 
rolling average emission limits for NOX and SO2 
at individual affected kilns. Additional requirements include a 
demonstration phase, facility-wide, 12-month rolling average 
NOX emission limit of 4.89 pounds of NOX per ton 
of clinker and an SO2 emission limit of 3.68 pounds of 
SO2 per ton of clinker. The demonstration phase limit will 
be followed by a period of testing of control efficiency and 
subsequently establish a 30-day rolling average limit for both 
NOX and SO2 to be calculated at the end of each 
24-hour period.
    In accordance with Regional Haze Rule, BART for PM emission was 
determined to be equivalent to the Portland Cement MACT, which 
regulates PM as a surrogate for hazardous air pollutants. Lafarge has 
emission controls (baghouses) in place to control hazardous air 
pollutants and thereby meets both the MACT requirements and the BART 
requirement for PM.
    EPA is proposing to approve the requirements established in the 
Consent Decree, requiring reductions in NOX and 
SO2 emissions at the Lafarge Midwest, Inc. facility located 
in Alpena, as satisfying BART requirements for these pollutants. In 
addition, EPA is satisfied that the PM MACT represents BART for PM, and 
approves a PM limit of 0.03 pounds per ton of dry feed as BART at kilns 
in KG5 and KG6.
(2) Smurfit Stone Container Corporation (SSCC)
    SSCC was a paper products plant located in Ontonagon, Michigan. The 
only BART subject emission unit at the facility was the Riley Boiler 
1 (EUBR 1).
    Subsequent to Michigan's determination of BART for this facility, 
the facility has been demolished. Any effort to reconstruct this 
facility would require a new source permit. Therefore, this facility 
cannot restart operation without implementing BART. Consequently, it is 
now moot whether Michigan's BART determination for this facility would 
have satisfied the BART requirement.
(3) St. Mary's Cement
    St. Mary's Cement operates a Portland cement kiln and associated 
material handling equipment in Charlevoix, Michigan. In addition to 
operating an on-site quarry and stone crushing operation, the company 
operates a kiln system that includes a pre-heater and pre-calciner. In 
2006, the company installed an indirect firing system to reduce fuel 
requirements and to reduce emissions of NOX and 
SO2.
    A consultant prepared and submitted to Michigan a report analyzing 
several control alternatives for this facility. Based on its review of 
this report, provided in Appendix 9E of its submittal to EPA, Michigan 
concluded that BART reflected no further control of this facility. 
Moreover, Michigan concluded that existing limits suffice to require 
this level of control.
    As discussed above, a full analysis of BART involves evaluation of 
five factors. These factors include: (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.
    EPA has identified several deficiencies in the evaluation of BART 
for St. Mary's Cement in Michigan's plan, most notably with respect to 
the evaluation of the costs and benefits of installing equipment for 
SNCR. These deficiencies include:

--Use of a 10-year projection of equipment life, rather than 15 or 20 
years, resulting in overly rapid amortization of the cost of control 
equipment;
--Inclusion of costs associated with production losses from system 
clogging that the company expects to

[[Page 46921]]

result from introduction of urea, based on a presumption that the 
company will fail to solve this problem;
--Underestimation of the emission reductions that can be expected from 
an improved SNCR;
--Overestimation of the costs of urea; and
--Overestimation of the costs of electricity.

    These issues are discussed in greater length in a May 24, 2012 
letter from Douglas Aburano, Chief of the Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section of EPA Region 5, to Vincent Hellwig, Chief of the 
Air Quality Control Division of the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality. The following table summarizes values that the 
consultant for St. Mary's Cement used in its cost-benefit analysis and 
the corresponding values that EPA used to assess whether SNCR is likely 
to be cost-effective at this facility.

          Table 4--Parameters for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of SNCR at St. Mary's Cement-Charlevoix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Parameter                   Consultant value              EPA value                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean-out costs..................  $968,000/yr. lost          Capital: $685,815.......  EPA estimates 50% more
                                    production.               Labor/materials $19,458.   capital, twice labor/
                                                                                         materials.
Urea.............................  $1,440,000...............  $458,167................  Assumes 0.31 moles urea/
                                                                                         mole NOX, $450/ton
                                                                                         urea.
Capital amortization.............  10-year life, 7% interest  15-20 year life, 7%
                                    (0.14).                    interest (0.11 to
                                                               0.0944) .*
Overhead.........................  $883,264 (60% of           $0......................  EPA's Control Cost
                                    material, labor).                                    Manual finds overhead
                                                                                         minimal.
Emission Reduction...............  524 tons/year (10% of      1259 tons/year (50% of
                                    baseline).                 2006 to 2008
                                                               emissions).
Electricity......................  $45,990 (100kW for 6570    $28,000 (Average of 100
                                    hrs/yr).                   kW for 4000 hrs/yr).
Maintenance (Labor, materials)...  $17,512..................  $35,540.................  EPA assumes twice normal
                                                                                         maintenance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Letter to Michigan estimated cost effectiveness based on 15-year life of control equipment, but EPA believes
  that amortization over 15 to 20 years is appropriate.

    In summary, the consultant for St. Mary's Cement assigned very high 
costs for lost production resulting from material buildup, very high 
costs for overhead, and low efficiency of NOX emission 
control. The consultant estimated that the annualized cost of 
NOX emission reduction would be $7,568 per ton. Based on the 
revised cost parameters summarized above, EPA finds that the annualized 
cost per ton of NOX emission reduction is likely to be 
between $920 and $980. (This range reflects a range of estimates of 
equipment life, amortizing the capital expense over between 15 and 20 
years.)
    Much of the consultant's discussion of SNCR that is included in 
Michigan's plan asserts that use of SNCR at this facility would cause 
buildup of ammonium bisulfite scale and would cause various expenses 
that would make operation of SNCR overly expensive. Most notably, the 
consultant asserts that use of SNCR would result in material buildup 
that would require periodic cleaning necessitating kiln downtime and 
lost production. The consultant also observes that ``air cannons'' 
currently in use to remove buildup could be supplemented, at 
considerable expense, but the consultant asserts that this approach 
would likely have limited effectiveness in reducing the need for full 
kiln shutdowns for cleaning purposes.
    EPA addressed these concerns in its May 24, 2012, letter to 
Michigan. EPA noted that ``SNCR has been successfully demonstrated at 
many cement plants across the country, which suggests that solutions to 
this problem are readily available.'' EPA listed some of the options 
for addressing this problem, including redesign for improved airflow, 
use of enhanced pneumatic cleaning or other cleaning approaches, and 
use of more concentrated urea (with less water content), and concluded 
that the success in operating SNCR at other plants indicates that SNCR 
can be successfully be operated at reasonable cost at this plant. 
Indeed, EPA's review finds that SNCR can be installed and operated at 
reasonable cost even if one assumes additional expense in installation 
and operation for addressing material buildup issues beyond the 
expenses currently incurred by the company addressing these issues.
    EPA has reassessed the above five factors for evaluating whether 
SNCR constitutes BART for the St. Mary's Cement Charlevoix facility. 
EPA finds that the facility can install and operate SNCR at reasonable 
cost. No energy or non-air quality environmental impacts influence this 
choice of control options. The design of the kiln system, which 
includes an indirect firing system that reduces the NOX 
emissions from the kiln, would be well complemented by installation and 
operation of SNCR. The facility is expected to have sufficient 
remaining useful life to assume that the cost of installing SNCR may be 
amortized over 15 to 20 years. While the Michigan plan does not 
estimate the visibility improvement that would result from installation 
and operation of SNCR, the plan estimates the overall impact of the 
plant is 3.8 dv, from which EPA conservatively estimates that SNCR 
would improve visibility by at least 0.4 dv. (This estimate reflects an 
assumption that half of the overall plant impact is due to 
NOX emissions. This estimate also reflects an assumption 
that baseline NOX emissions used in estimating the plant's 
impact were 5,741 tons per year, though the report in Michigan's SIP 
also suggests that the impact analysis may reflect a substantially 
lower NOX emission rate, which would indicate that the 
benefits of SNCR would be much greater.)
    EPA also reviewed the determination of BART for this facility with 
respect to SO2. Based on CEMS data for 2006 to 2008, the 
average SO2 emission rate at this facility is 3.02 pounds 
per ton of clinker. The Michigan SIP does not clearly limit 
SO2 emissions from this facility, though a construction 
permit limits annual emissions to 4,404 tons per year and 550 tons per 
30 days, which, at 2006 to 2008 average production rates are equivalent 
to 7.9 pounds and 12.0 pounds of SO2 per ton of clinker, 
respectively. The company states that a lower emission limit should not 
be considered BART because the BART limits should accommodate higher 
sulfur-bearing raw materials in

[[Page 46922]]

the company's quarry than are presently being used.
    Michigan's plan includes a consultant's analysis of both wet and 
dry flue gas desulfurization. This analysis fails to annualize 
equipment costs, and instead computes cost effectiveness by adding the 
entire capital costs for equipment and installation plus the costs of 
one year's operation, then dividing by one year's emission reduction. 
Using the consultant's cost estimates but amortizing the capital costs 
over a 20-year period (assuming an interest rate of 7 percent) suggests 
costs per ton of $3,500 for dry flue gas desulfurization and $4,500 per 
ton for wet flue gas desulfurization.
    EPA proposes to find that no additional control equipment 
constitutes BART for SO2 under current conditions. However, 
if the company, as it contemplates, uses raw materials with higher 
sulfur content, then the cost-benefit ratio for control would improve, 
potentially to the point where installation of emission control 
equipment is warranted.
    Based on review of these factors, EPA concludes that BART at St. 
Mary's Cement's Charlevoix facility includes installation and operation 
of SNCR and a more stringent tighter limit on emissions of 
SO2. EPA concludes as a result that Michigan's plan fails to 
require BART at this facility. Therefore, EPA proposes to disapprove 
Michigan's plan with respect to BART.
    In a notice published January 15, 2009, at 74 FR 2392, EPA notified 
Michigan of a failure to submit a timely plan for regional haze. 
Consequently, under Clean Air Act section 110(c), in the absence of a 
state plan meeting pertinent requirements, EPA is to promulgate FIP 
provisions meeting the requirements. EPA is proposing Federal limits in 
this action to address the BART requirement for St. Mary's Cement's 
Charlevoix facility. These limits are discussed in a subsequent section 
of this preamble.
(4) NewPage Paper
    NewPage Paper owns and operates a paper mill in Escanaba, Michigan, 
a facility that is permitted by the State as Escanaba Paper. The 
largest boiler at the facility was not constructed during the time 
period for BART eligibility, but several other boilers and other 
operations at the plant are subject to the requirement for BART. 
Michigan's plan includes a review prepared by the company's consultant 
that concluded that existing controls constitute BART and that existing 
limits suffice to require these controls.
    EPA's review focused on the largest of these sources, namely Boiler 
8 and Boiler 9. Boiler 8 has historically been fired with both natural 
gas and residual oil, but in the past few years the boiler has only 
used natural gas. Boiler 9 is a stoker boiler that predominantly fires 
wood bark generated at the plant. Since the fuels firing these boilers 
have minimal sulfur content, the SO2 emissions from these 
boilers are insignificant. State rules limit the NOX 
emissions of boiler 8 during the ozone season (defined as May 1 to 
September 30), with a limit of 0.2 /MMBTU when firing gas and 
0.40 /MMBTU when firing residual oil. However, these rules are 
not part of the Michigan SIP, and Michigan did not submit these rules 
as part of its regional haze plan submittal. Boiler 8 has no state or 
Federal NOX emission limits for the rest of the year, and 
Boiler 9, being predominantly wood-fired, has no state or Federal 
NOX emission limits at any time.
    The emission profiles of these two boilers have changed 
significantly since 2002. Boiler 8, besides becoming predominantly 
fired with natural gas, has been used much less in recent years than in 
prior years, which, in combination with a modest reduction in emissions 
per million BTU, resulted in the boiler's NOX emissions 
declining from an average of 135 tons per year in 2002 to 2004 to an 
average of 40 tons per year in 2010 to 2011. Boiler 9 had relatively 
steady usage throughout this period, but modifications to the boiler's 
overfire air system in 2006 resulted in the boiler's NOX 
emissions declining from a 2002 to 2004 average of 836 tons per year to 
a 2010 to 2011 average of 250 tons per year.
    EPA identified several concerns with the Michigan submittal's 
analysis of costs and benefits of emission controls at these two 
boilers. The submittal, reflecting the analysis by the company's 
contractor, appears to overestimate likely costs of installing 
controls, fails to evaluate design changes such as the improved 
overfire air design implemented at Boiler 9, and assumes overly short 
control equipment life (thereby amortizing control costs over an 
inappropriately short period).
    More importantly, as noted above, Michigan's plan includes no 
limits on emissions from these two boilers; indeed, the plan does not 
even include the limits in state rules that apply to Boiler 8 during 
the ozone season. Therefore, notwithstanding the emission reductions 
that have occurred at the key BART units at NewPage Paper's Escanaba 
facility, Michigan's plan does not include any limits that mandate any 
reductions at these boilers. Therefore, EPA believes that Michigan's 
plan fails to require BART for these two boilers.
    Michigan identified several other units at NewPage Paper that are 
subject to a requirement for BART, including the Number 10 recovery 
furnace, a lime kiln, and the smelt dissolving tank. EPA concurs with 
Michigan's conclusion that these other units do not require limits to 
require BART controls. However, EPA finds that Michigan has failed to 
require BART for the facility because the state has failed to submit 
limits requiring appropriate control for Boilers 8 and 9.
    As discussed above for St. Mary's Cement, EPA is obligated here to 
promulgate FIP provisions in cases where state plan provisions are 
inadequate. FIP provisions mandating BART for NewPage Paper's Escanaba 
facility are discussed in a subsequent section of this preamble.
(5) Tilden Mining
    EPA is reviewing Michigan's BART determination for Tilden mining in 
conjunction with a review of BART for other taconite plants in 
Minnesota. By this means, EPA intends to ensure that the Tilden Mining 
taconite plant and similar facilities in Minnesota are subject to 
similar requirements. This review is being addressed in a separate 
rulemaking action that EPA plans to conduct on the same timetable as 
this Michigan rulemaking.

E. Long Term Strategy

    Under section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.308(d), 
states' regional haze programs must include a long term strategy for 
making reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. 
Michigan's long term strategy must address visibility improvement for 
the Class I areas in and out of Michigan that are affected by Michigan 
sources. Section 51.308(d)(3) requires that Michigan consult with the 
affected states in order to develop a coordinated emission management 
strategy. Michigan must demonstrate that its plan includes all measures 
necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions needed to 
meet the reasonable progress goals for the Class I areas affected by 
Michigan sources. As described in section III.D of this proposal, the 
long term strategy is the compilation of all control measures Michigan 
will use to meet applicable reasonable progress goals. The long term 
strategy must include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance 
schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable 
progress goals for all Class I areas affected by Michigan emissions.

[[Page 46923]]

    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the regional haze rule identifies seven 
factors that a state must consider in developing its long term 
strategy: (A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs, (B) measures to mitigate impacts from construction, (C) 
emission limits and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable 
progress goal, (D) replacement and retirement of sources, (E) smoke 
management techniques, (F) federally enforceable emission limits and 
control measures, and (G) the anticipated net effect on visibility due 
to projected emission changes over the long term strategy period.
    Michigan relied on MRPO's modeling and analysis along with its 
emission information in developing a long term strategy. Michigan 
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. Michigan considered the 
factors set out in 51.308(d)(3)(v) in developing its long term 
strategy. Based on these factors and the MRPO's technical analysis, in 
conjunction with reasonable progress goals that were set by the 
pertinent states in consultation with Michigan and other states, 
Michigan concludes that existing control programs adequately address 
Michigan's impact on Class I areas and suffice to meet their reasonable 
progress goals 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, MACT 
requirements, 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 a separate EPA rule (June 7, 2012, at 77 FR 33642), a 
number of states, including Michigan, 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 rulemaking, we promulgated a limited disapproval of 
Michigan's long term strategy based on its reliance on CAIR, and 
promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR requirements with 
reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR to satisfy BART requirements 
for NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs in various 
states including Michigan. We are now proposing to find that the 
remaining elements of Michigan's long term strategy, amended further to 
include the BART limitations that EPA is proposing for St. Mary's 
Cement and for NewPage Paper in this action, meet the requirements of 
the regional haze rule.

F. Monitoring Strategy

    Michigan's monitoring strategy relies on participation in the 
IMPROVE network. There is an IMPROVE Protocol monitoring site in Quaker 
City, Michigan. Michigan also runs a network of criteria pollutant 
monitors that provides data to analyze air quality problems including 
regional haze. Class I states like Michigan are 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. Michigan developed procedures in conjunction 
with the MRPO. The procedures are detailed in the MRPO TSD. EPA finds 
that Michigan's regional haze plan meets the monitoring requirements 
for the regional haze rule and that Michigan's network of monitoring 
sites is satisfactory to measure air quality and assess its 
contribution to regional haze.

G. Comments

    Michigan provided a public comment period on its proposed regional 
haze plan. It held a public hearing on June 29, 2010, which concluded 
the public comment period. Michigan received comments from the FLMs as 
part of the consultation process as well as from EPA. Michigan 
submitted evidence of the public notice and public hearing to EPA.
    Michigan provided the comments it received and its responses in a 
document within its regional haze plan. Michigan revised portions of 
its proposed plan in response to comments. Michigan has satisfied the 
requirements from 40 CFR 51 appendix V by providing evidence that it 
gave public notice, took comments, and that it compiled and responded 
to comments.

V. What are EPA's proposed BART determinations?

    As noted above, in absence of a state submittal that satisfies BART 
requirements for St. Mary's Cement's Charlevoix facility and for 
NewPage Paper's Escanaba facility, EPA is under obligation to 
promulgate Federal provisions satisfying these requirements. The 
following discussion evaluates appropriate limits to satisfy the BART 
requirement for these facilities. As noted above, EPA is addressing 
Tilden Mining's facility near Ishpeming in a separate rulemaking.

A. St. Mary's Cement

    As discussed in section IV.E., EPA proposes to find that SNCR 
represents BART on the kiln at St. Mary's Cement's Charlevoix facility. 
The following discussion describes EPA's assessment of the appropriate 
emission limit for mandating BART-level control at this facility.
    The most relevant information concerning potential effectiveness of 
SNCR at this facility is from testing at St. Mary's Cement's facility 
in Dixon, Illinois. A set of tests, lasting 1 to 3 days each, injected 
urea at a rate equal to a stoichiometric ratio of 0.6 of the rate of 
uncontrolled NOX emissions. (That is, the ratio of the moles 
of ammonia produced by the injected urea to the moles of uncontrolled 
NOX emissions was 0.6.) These tests showed an average of 46 
percent NOX emission reduction. Shorter term tests at the 
Dixon facility showed that injection of urea at a stoichiometric ratio 
of 1.2 achieved an average of 83 percent reduction in NOX 
emissions.
    Several other reviews have also found SNCR to be effective at 
controlling NOX emissions from cement kilns, commonly 
achieving 50 percent NOX control. EPA has conducted a recent 
review of options for controlling emissions for Portland cement plants, 
in developing new source performance standards for these facilities. 
EPA proposed these new source performance standards on June 16, 2008, 
at 73 FR 34072, and published final standards on September 9, 2010, at 
75 FR 54970. These standards included a new standard for NOX 
emissions, set at 1.5 pounds per ton of clinker on a 30-day average 
basis.
    Other reviews similar to EPA's review for its new source 
performance standards have also found SNCR to be an effective means of 
controlling NOX emissions from existing cement kilns. EPA 
made similar findings in an earlier review, given in a report published 
in 2000 entitled, ``NOX Control Technologies in the Cement 
Industry: Final Report'' (EPA-457/R-00-002, September 2000, available 
at https://_www.epa.gov/_ttnnaaqs/_ozone/ctg_act/200009_nox_epa457_r-00-002_cement_industry.pdf). Although application of 
NOX control technology was relatively rare in the United 
States at the time (i.e., before the NOX SIP Call required 
control), EPA found SNCR to be an effective means of reducing 
NOX emissions, commonly achieving 50 percent or more 
reduction. Regional

[[Page 46924]]

planning organizations evaluating options for BART also made similar 
findings. (See, for example, ``Identification and Evaluation of 
Candidate Control Measures--Phase II Final Report,'' June 2006, 
available at https://www.ladco.org/reports/control/final_reports/identification_and_evaluation_of_candidate_control_measures_ii_june_2006.pdf.)
    EPA determined baseline emissions at St. Mary's Cement from 
continuous emission monitoring data for 2006 to 2008 reported by the 
company. These data indicated that NOX emissions from the 
kiln average 4.52 pounds per ton of clinker. This is quite similar to 
the representative emission factors for similar Portland cement 
manufacturing facilities given in the EPA emission factor guidance 
document known as AP-42, which is 4.2 pounds of NOX per ton 
of clinker for preheater/precalciner kilns and 4.8 pounds of 
NOX per ton of clinker for preheater process kilns. The St. 
Mary's Cement data for 2006 to 2008 also indicate that the 95th 
percentile value among 30-day average NOX emission rates was 
5.78 pounds per ton of clinker. For SO2, the St. Mary's 
Cement data indicate an average emission rate of 3.02 pounds per ton of 
clinker, and the 95th percentile value among 30-day averages was 7.19 
pounds per ton of clinker.
    EPA believes that the most appropriate form for a limit on 
emissions from St. Mary's Cement is a 30-day rolling average of 
emissions per ton of clinker. This reflects the form of the standard 
used in the new source performance standards for Portland cement kilns.
    EPA believes that the appropriate limit for NOX 
emissions from the kiln at St. Mary's Cement would reflect a 50 percent 
reduction from the average emissions. Thus, rounding to two significant 
figures, EPA proposes to establish a limit on NOX emissions 
from the St. Mary's Cement kiln at 2.30 pounds per ton of clinker, set 
as a 30-day rolling average. According to 2006 to 2008 data from the 
facility, this limit would require slightly under 60 percent control 
from St. Mary's Cement's 95th percentile 30-day average emission rate, 
which the evidence from tests at St. Mary's Cement's Dixon facility 
indicates is readily achievable, particularly since a limit of 2.30 
pounds per ton of clinker would only occasionally require this level of 
control.
    EPA is also proposing to establish a limit on SO2 
emissions per ton of clinker. The purpose of this limit is not to 
require emission controls to achieve emissions below current levels. 
Instead, EPA intends this limit to assure that emissions do not 
increase significantly above current levels. While EPA has concluded 
that installation and operation of SO2 emission control 
equipment is not cost effective at current SO2 emission 
rates, such control equipment would be cost effective at higher 
SO2 emission rates. That is, EPA is proposing to establish a 
limit reflecting its view that BART reflects no further control under 
current circumstances with current raw material sulfur contents but the 
BART reflects achievement of an SO2 emission rate that would 
involve emission control if the raw material contained significantly 
more sulfur.
    As noted above, the average SO2 emission rate at St. 
Mary's Cement from 2006 to 2008 was 3.02 pounds per ton of clinker, and 
the 95th percentile 30-day average over this period was 7.19 pounds per 
clinker. Since most emission rates are well below 7.19 pounds per ton 
of clinker, EPA is proposing to set a limit that reflects a 5 percent 
compliance margin relative to this emission rate. That is, EPA is 
proposing to set a limit of 7.5 pounds of SO2 emissions per 
ton of clinker as a 30-day rolling average.
    This facility currently operates a continuous emission monitoring 
system that measures NOX and SO2 emissions from 
the kiln, and EPA envisions using data from this system to evaluate 
compliance with the NOX and SO2 limits it is 
proposing.
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv), BART controls must be installed and 
operated as expeditiously as practicable. EPA believes that Saint 
Mary's Cement may reasonably be required to conduct the engineering, 
design, installation, and trial operation of the SNCR to be able to 
meet this limit within about three years from the expected effective 
date of final promulgation of these limits. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
a compliance date for the NOX limit of January 1, 2016. That 
is, under this proposal, the first 30-day period that would be required 
to achieve an average NOX emission rate of 2.3 /
MMBTU would be from January 1, 2016 to January 30, 2016. EPA is 
proposing that the SO2 limit apply upon the effective date 
of the final promulgation of the limit, because the company is already 
complying with the limit.

B. NewPage Paper

    The first step in determining BART for boilers 8 and 9 at NewPage 
Paper's Escanaba facility is to review information relevant to the five 
factors used in evaluating BART determinations. First, for Boiler 8, 
EPA reevaluated costs based on the information provided in Michigan's 
submittal, but replaced the capital cost estimate with an updated 
estimate that NewPage provided in a June 20, 2012 email from Todd 
Schmidt to Douglas Aburano, EPA Region 5. This information suggests 
that NewPage could install low NOX burners at a total 
capital cost of $797,000, which, amortized at 7 percent interest over 
20 years, represents an annualized capital cost of $75,200. With the 
additional estimated annual operating cost of $12,000, the total 
estimated annualized cost is $87,200. EPA estimates baseline emissions 
for this boiler to be 143.2 tons per year, and EPA believes that low 
NOX burners would achieve a 40 percent reduction of 
NOX emissions, which, at baseline operating rates, would 
reduce emissions by 57.3 tons per year. This suggests that low 
NOX burners would reduce NOX emissions with a 
cost effectiveness of $1,500 per ton.
    There are no non-air quality-related impacts have been identified 
that affect the BART determination. The company has installed flue gas 
recirculation to help meet state limits that apply during the ozone 
season, although the company assumes significant costs for year-round 
operation of this design feature and argues that it achieves only a 12 
percent reduction relative to ``current baseline emissions.'' The 
remaining useful life of the facility is unknown, but EPA assumed it to 
be sufficient to amortize any capital costs of control equipment over 
15 to 20 years.
    The Michigan plan includes the results of modeling, conducted by 
the consultant for NewPage Paper, that is based on a worst-case 
NOX emission rate of 1,300 tons per year, indicating an 
impact on average visibility (from both NOX and 
SO2 emissions) of 0.4 dv. Thus, a reduction of 
NOX emissions from 143.2 tons per year to 85.9 tons per year 
would be estimated to reduce average visibility by no more than about 
0.02 dv.
    An important consideration in determining BART for Boiler 8 is the 
fact that the company has already reduced emissions from this boiler. 
According to information provided to the Michigan Air Emissions 
Reporting System, the average emission factor has declined somewhat, 
and usage has declined sufficiently that emissions in 2010 and 2011 
averaged 40 tons per year of NOX. Furthermore, the boiler is 
subject to a State rule that limits emissions during the ozone season 
(May to September) from this boiler to 0.20 /MMBTU while 
firing natural gas and 0.40 /MMBTU while firing residual oil. 
To meet this rule, the company has

[[Page 46925]]

installed flue gas recirculation, although usage of this system is 
limited. Michigan did not submit this rule for inclusion in the SIP, 
but EPA believes that slightly higher limits can reasonably be achieved 
on a year-round basis. Given the decline in usage of this boiler, EPA 
believes that imposition of limits comparable to emissions rates 
currently being achieved will suffice to assure an appropriate level of 
protection from visibility impacts from this boiler, comparable to the 
reductions that would be achieved if the boiler were operated at 
previous usage rates and installed a low NOX burner. 
Therefore, EPA proposes to establish limits on pounds of NOX 
emissions per million BTUs, to be met as a 30-day rolling average. The 
facility is not now burning residual oil, but EPA proposes to identify 
limits for NOX emissions from combustion of both natural gas 
and residual oil. EPA proposes to mandate that Boiler 8 meet a limit, 
calculated as a 30-day rolling average, that would be computed as a 
weighted average based on the relative quantities of heat input from 
burning natural gas and from burning residual oil. EPA is proposing 
fuel specific limits of 0.26 /MMBTU for combustion of natural 
gas and 0.50 /MMBTU for combustion of residual oil, in each 
case representing approximately 10 percent above the upper end of the 
range of emission rates under current operation.\2\ Compliance 
information will be obtained from a continuous emission monitoring 
system that the company operates on this boiler. Since the boiler is 
often not operating, EPA will compute 30-day averages on the basis of 
30 successive operating days, not counting days in which the boiler 
does not operate. EPA envisions that the company will be able to meet 
these limits by maintaining existing operations (maintaining existing 
combustion improvements), but finds that the company also has the 
flexibility to meet these limits by installing low NOX 
burners or using its flue gas recirculation equipment more frequently. 
These limits reflect EPA's proposed judgment that the existing emission 
reductions are warranted as BART but that further emission reductions 
are not warranted for the limited benefits they would achieve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Operation in 2010 and 2011, during which the boiler was gas-
fired, yielded a 30-day average emission factor of up to about 0.24 
/MMBTU. Operation in 2008 and 2009, during which the boiler 
was often oil-fired, yielded emission factors up to about 0.45 
/MMBTU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Boiler 9, usage rates have remained relatively steady, but the 
company modified its boiler design in 2006 to incorporate overfire air. 
Stack tests for this boiler indicate that this modification decreased 
NOX emissions from about 0.69 /MMBTU to about 0.20 
to 0.22 /MMBTU. The company has not provided cost information 
regarding this modification, but maintaining this modification is 
clearly cost effective. Modeling in Michigan's submittal indicates that 
345 tons per year of NOX emissions from this boiler, in 
combination with about 50 tons per year of SO2 emissions, 
have an average visibility impact of 0.2 dv. Therefore, the 
modification to incorporate overfire air, with which Boiler 9 
NOX emissions have decreased from an estimated average of 
840 tons per year in 2002 to 2004 to an estimated average of 240 tons 
per year in 2009 to 2011, is estimated to have yielded a visibility 
improvement of 0.4 dv. No non-air quality related environmental impacts 
have been identified to influence the choice of BART, and remaining 
useful life of the facility is also not a significant factor. From its 
consideration of these factors, EPA concludes that the overfire air 
modifications that the company has made are included in BART for this 
boiler. At the same time, based on information in Michigan's submittal, 
EPA agrees with the conclusion in Michigan's submittal that no further 
control of this boiler constitutes BART.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing limits to mandate the continued 
operation of the overfire air system that the company has installed on 
Boiler 9. Since no system for continuous emission monitoring is 
operating on this boiler, EPA is proposing a limit that would be 
enforced by stack tests. As noted above, the most recent stack tests 
for this boiler indicated NOX emission rates of 0.22 
/MMBTU and 0.20 /MMBTU, respectively. To accommodate 
a modest degree of stack test variability, EPA is proposing to set a 
limit with a 25 percent compliance margin. That is, EPA is proposing a 
NOX emission limit for Boiler 9 of 0.27 /MMBTU. 
(This emission rate also is about 10 percent higher than the highest 
single run test result reported by the company.)
    NewPage Paper has already implemented measures to meet these limits 
on Boilers 8 and 9. Therefore, EPA is proposing that these limits take 
effect upon the effective date of the rulemaking promulgating these 
limits.

VI. What actions is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing limited approval of revisions to the Michigan SIP, 
submitted on November 5, 2010, addressing regional haze for the first 
implementation period. The revisions seek to satisfy Clean Air Act 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 Michigan's submission satisfies BART requirements 
for some of the non-EGUs, most notably based on a Federal consent 
decree requiring new controls for SO2 and NOX 
emissions for the Lafarge plant. On the other hand, EPA proposes to 
conclude that Michigan's submittal does not require BART at St. Mary's 
Cement's facility in Charlevoix or at NewPage Paper's facility in 
Escanaba. Specifically, we are proposing limited disapproval of the 
NOX and SO2 BART determination for the cement 
kiln and associated equipment at the St. Mary's Cement facility and of 
the NOX BART determination for Boiler 8 and 9 of the NewPage 
Paper Company. Further, we propose a FIP that specifically imposes 
NOX and SO2 limits mandating BART for the cement 
kiln and associated equipment for the St. Mary's Cement facility, and 
NOX limits mandating BART for Boilers 8 and 9 of the NewPage 
Paper Company.
    EPA is also reviewing Michigan's BART determination for Tilden 
Mining taconite plant. EPA plans to take action on this BART 
determination in a separate action that includes similar facilities in 
Minnesota.
    Michigan's submission provides an approvable analysis of the 
emission reductions needed to satisfy reasonable progress and other 
regional haze planning requirements, and Michigan's submission meets 
other regional haze planning requirements such as identification of 
affected Class I areas and provision of a monitoring plan.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The proposed Virgin Islands 
Regional Haze FIP requires implementation of existing emissions 
controls and emission reduction strategies on one facility and is not a 
rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of 
information'' is defined as

[[Page 46926]]

a requirement for ``answers to * * * identical reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *.'' 44 
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP applies to just one 
facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 
1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control numbers 
for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on 
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Regional Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the 
regional haze program consists of imposing existing Federal controls to 
meet the BART requirement for SO2, NOX, and PM 
emissions on specific units at one facility in the Virgin Islands. The 
net result of this FIP action is that EPA is proposing existing direct 
emission controls on selected units at only one facility. The facility 
in question is a large petroleum refinery that is not owned by a small 
entity, and therefore is not a small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 
million by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in 
any 1 year. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The proposed Virgin Islands Regional Haze FIP does not have 
federalism implications. This action will not have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132. In this action, EPA is fulfilling its 
statutory duty under Clean Air Act section 110(c) to promulgate a 
Regional Haze FIP following its finding that the Virgin Islands had 
failed to submit a regional haze SIP. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and 
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this 
proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects 
on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

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

    EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 
required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence 
the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it 
implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes. 
However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit emissions of 
SO2, NOX, and PM the rule will have a beneficial 
effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. 
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities 
conducive to the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects

[[Page 46927]]

on minority or low-income populations because it limits increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 13, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal regulations is proposed 
to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding a new entry at the end of 
the table in paragraph (e) for ``Regional Haze Plan'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or     State submittal   EPA approved date         Comments
            provision              nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan..............  Statewide..........       11/5/2010   8/6/12, [Insert      Includes all
                                                                         page number where    regional haze plan
                                                                         the document         elements except
                                                                         begins].             BART emission
                                                                                              limitations for
                                                                                              EGUs, St. Mary's
                                                                                              Cement, NewPage
                                                                                              Paper, and Tilden
                                                                                              Mining.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 52.1183 is amended by adding paragraphs (g), (h), and 
(i), to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1183  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (g) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not 
met because the regional haze plan submitted on November 5, 2010, does 
not meet the best available retrofit technology requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(e) with respect to emissions of NOx and SO2 from 
Saint Mary's Cement in Charlevoix and NOX from NewPage Paper 
in Escanaba. These requirements for these two facilities are satisfied 
by 40 CFR 52.1183(h) and 40 CFR 52.1183(i), respectively.
    (h)(1) For the 30-day period beginning January 1, 2016, and 
thereafter, Saint Mary's Cement, or any subsequent owner or operator of 
the Saint Mary's Cement facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, shall 
not cause or permit the emission of oxides of nitrogen (expressed as 
NO2) to exceed 2.30 pounds per ton of clinker as a 30-day 
rolling average.
    (2) Saint Mary's Cement, or any subsequent owner or operator of the 
Saint Mary's Cement facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, shall not 
cause or permit the emission of sulfur dioxide to exceed 7.50 pounds 
per ton of clinker as a 12-month average.
    (3) Saint Mary's Cement, or any subsequent owner or operator of the 
Saint Mary's Cement facility located in Charlevoix, Michigan, shall 
operate continuous emission monitoring systems to measure 
NOX and SO2 emissions from its kiln system in 
conformance with 40 CFR 60 appendix B Performance Specification 2.
    (4) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the 
limit in paragraph (h)(1) shall be use of a continuous emission 
monitoring system operated in conformance with 40 CFR 60 appendix B 
Performance Specification 2. A new 30-day average shall be computed at 
the end of each calendar day.
    (5) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the 
limit in paragraph (h)(2) shall be use of a continuous emission 
monitoring system operated in conformance with 40 CFR 60 appendix B 
Performance Specification 2. A new 12-month average shall be computed 
at the end of each calendar month.
    (6) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator shall maintain the following 
records for at least five years:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling 
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (ii) All records of clinker production, monitored in accordance 
with 40 CFR 60.63.
    (iii) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities 
for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any 
records required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (iv) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on 
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS and clinker 
production measurement devices.
    (v) Any other records required by 40 CFR part 60, Subpart F, or 40 
CFR part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (7) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to 
Chief, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE-17J, 77 W. 
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3590.
    (i) Owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly excess 
emissions reports for SO2 and NOX BART limits no 
later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. 
Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include 
the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excess 
emissions, specific identification of each period of excess emissions 
that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, 
the nature and cause of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective 
action taken or preventative measures adopted.
    (ii) Owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly CEMS 
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period 
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span 
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was 
inoperative and steps taken to prevent

[[Page 46928]]

recurrence, and any CEMS repairs or adjustments.
    (iii) Owner/operator shall also submit results of any CEMS 
performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 
(Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder 
Gas Audits).
    (iv) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not 
been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, 
such information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by 
sections (7)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) NewPage Paper, or any subsequent owner or operator of the 
NewPage Paper facility in Escanaba, Michigan, shall not cause or permit 
the emission of oxides of nitrogen (expressed as NO2) to 
exceed the following limits:
    (1) For Boiler 8, designated as EU8B13, a 30-day weighted average 
limit on emissions per million British Thermal Units, based on a limit 
for natural gas firing of 0.26 pounds per million British Thermal Units 
(/MMBTU) and a limit for residual oil firing of 0.50 
/MMBTU, weighted according to the heat input for each fuel, to 
be computed as follows:
    Emission limit, in /MMBTU = [0.26 * (heat input from 
firing natural gas) + 0.50 * (heat input from firing residual oil)]/
(total heat input).
    (2) NewPage Paper, or any subsequent owner or operator of the 
NewPage Paper facility located in Escanaba, Michigan, shall operate a 
continuous emission monitoring system to measure NOX 
emissions from Boiler 8 in conformance with 40 CFR 60 appendix B 
Performance Specification 2.
    (3) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the 
limit in paragraph (i)(1) shall be a continuous emission monitoring 
system operated in conformance with 40 CFR 60 appendix B Performance 
Specification 2. A new 30-day average shall be computed at the end of 
each calendar day in which the boiler operated. Each average shall 
include the most recent 30 days in which the boiler operated, and shall 
exclude days in which the boiler did not operate.
    (4) For Boiler 9, also identified as EU9B03, a limit of 0.27 
/MMBTU.
    (5) The reference test method for assessing compliance with the 
limit in paragraph (i)(4) shall be a test conducted in accordance with 
40 CFR 60 appendix A Method 7.
    (6) Recordkeeping. Owner/operator shall maintain the following 
records regarding Boiler 8 and Boiler 9 for at least five years:
    (i) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling 
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
    (ii) All stack test results.
    (iii) Daily records of fuel usage, heat input, and data used to 
determine heat content.
    (iv) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities 
for emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any 
records required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (v) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on 
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
    (vi) Any other records identified in 40 CFR 60.49b(g) or 40 CFR 
part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1.
    (7) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to 
the Chief, Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Mail Code AE-17J, 77 W. 
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3590.
    (i) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall submit quarterly excess 
emissions reports for the limit in paragraph (i)(1) no later than the 
30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess emissions 
means emissions that exceed the emissions limit specified in paragraph 
(i)(1) of this section. The reports shall include the magnitude, 
date(s), and duration of each period of excess emissions, specific 
identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during 
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause 
of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective action taken or 
preventative measures adopted.
    (ii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall submit quarterly CEMS 
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period 
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span 
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was 
inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs 
or adjustments.
    (iii) Owner/operator of Boiler 8 shall also submit results of any 
CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, 
Procedure 1 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, 
and Cylinder Gas Audits).
    (iv) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not 
been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, 
such information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by 
sections (i)(7) of this section.
    (v) Owner/operator of Boiler 9 shall submit reports of any test 
measuring NOx emissions from Boiler 9 within 60 days of the last day of 
the test. If owner/operator commences operation of a continuous NOx 
emission monitoring system for Boiler 9, owner/operator shall submit 
reports for Boiler 9 as specified for Boiler 8 in paragraphs (i)(7)(i) 
to (i)(7)(iv).

[FR Doc. 2012-19039 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P