Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 11958-11974 [2012-4681]

Download as PDF 11958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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 (NTTAA) Section 12 of the 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: February 15, 2012. A. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2012–4689 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0153, FRL–9638–3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) on August 5, 2009, and supplemental information submitted on January 30, 2012, that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and EPA’s rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for Missouri on the basis that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the Missouri SIP. In a separate action EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia (DC Circuit) to the EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). See 76 FR 82219. Therefore, we are not taking action in this notice to address the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 OAR–2012–0153 by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov. 3. Fax: 913–551–7884 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments. 4. Mail: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2012– 0153. 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 through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Chrissy Wolfersberger can be reached at telephone number (913) 551–7864 and by electronic mail at wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the EPA. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Table of Contents I. What action is EPA proposing? II. What is the background for EPA’s proposed action? A. The Regional Haze Problem B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR) C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs? A. The CAA and the RHR B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s regional haze submittal? VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 A. Affected Class I Areas B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions 1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions 4. Uniform Rate of Progress C. Reasonable Progress Goals D. BART 1. BART-Eligible Sources 2. BART-Subject Sources 3. BART Determinations E. Long-Term Strategy 1. Technical Basis for Long-Term Strategy 2. Identification of Sources and Factors To Be Considered F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) G. Emissions Inventory H. Monitoring Strategy I. Consultation J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports V. What action is EPA proposing? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA proposing? EPA is proposing a limited approval of Missouri’s August 5, 2009, SIP revision, including supplemental information submitted on January 30, 2012, addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) because the revision as a whole strengthens the Missouri SIP. This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support Document 1 (TSD) explain the basis for EPA’s proposed limited approval action.2 In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing to take action in today’s rulemaking on issues associated with Missouri’s reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. Comments on our proposed limited disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze SIP may be directed to the docket for that rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2011–0729. 1 EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical Support Document for Missouri Regional Haze Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this action. 2 Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision. Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 11959 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 emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that 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 3 in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999). B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR) In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation’s national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the ‘‘prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas 4 which impairment 3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky. 4 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 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM Continued 28FEP1 11960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules results from man-made 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, i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility impairment’’. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved. Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in Section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.5 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 5 Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74–2–4). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 States, tribal governments and various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged the States and tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective. 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 particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants leading to regional haze. The Central Regional Air Planning Organization (CENRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of State governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the Central United States. Member State and tribal governments include: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Reservation, Grand Portage Band of Chippewa Indians, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Lower Sioux Indian communities, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Kialegee Triabal Town, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Qua Paw Tribe, Santee Sioux Nation, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri, and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs? A. The CAA and the RHR Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s implementing regulations require states to establish long-term strategies for PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 making reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail below. B. Determinations of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in dv is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The dv is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself because each dv change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility at one dv.6 The dv is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas. To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years midway through each ten-year implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires States to determine the 6 The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999). E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 their Class I areas. In addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA’s Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ B–03–005 located at 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 SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, ‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired 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 the future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000–2004 baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured. C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the States that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 I area for each (approximately) ten-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for States to establish goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, States must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) ten-year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are required to consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take these factors into consideration, as noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting the RPGs, States must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the ‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the ten-year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress which States are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each State with one or more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must also consult with potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby States with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the Class I State’s areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 11961 order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources 7 built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit Technology’’ as determined by the State. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, States also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘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. In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources. States must address all visibilityimpairing 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 compounds impair visibility in Class I areas. Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a 7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources’ impacts. Any exemption threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 dv. In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources, described as ‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, and document their BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States 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. States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned to each factor. A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. As noted above, the RHR allows States to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration for CAIR. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations provide that States participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected BARTeligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR is not applicable to emissions of VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PM, States were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport Rule,’’ also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART in the States in which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow States to substitute participation in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not taken final action on that rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the court’s resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer the CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule. E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that States include in their regional haze SIP a tento fifteen-year strategy for making reasonable progress, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that States include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a State will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the State. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). When a State’s emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in another State, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. 40 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing State must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations between States may be required to sufficiently address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two States belong to different RPOs. States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, States must describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) LTS As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date of submission of the State’s first plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the State must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the State must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a State’s LTS must report on both regional E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through ‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met. The SIP must also provide for the following: • Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a State with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the State; • Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a State with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States; • Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the State, and where possible, in electronic format; • Developing 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 for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. A State must also make a commitment to update the inventory periodically; and • Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility. The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every ten years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 core requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d), with the exception of BART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply with the BART provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to be met. H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) The RHR requires that States consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least sixty days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a State must include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs regarding the State’s visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Missouri’s regional haze submittal? On August 5, 2009, MDNR’s Air Pollution Control Program submitted revisions to the Missouri SIP to address regional haze in the State’s Class I areas as required by EPA’s RHR. A. Affected Class I Areas Missouri has identified two Class I areas within its borders: Hercules Glades Wilderness Area and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. Because both areas lie within Missouri’s geographic boundaries, Missouri is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that addresses these Class I areas. EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s identification of affected Class I areas. Missouri determined appropriate RPGs and consulted with other States that impact the two Class I areas. Missouri is responsible for developing long-term emission strategies, its role in the consultation process, and how the Missouri SIP meets the other PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 11963 requirements in EPA’s regional haze regulations. The Missouri regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in 2018. In developing the LTS for each area, Missouri considered both emission sources inside and outside of Missouri that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Missouri’s Class I areas. The State also identified and considered emission sources within Missouri that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The CENRAP RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to make these determinations, including State-by-State contributions to visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the two areas in Missouri and Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas in Arkansas. B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, Missouri calculated baseline/current and natural visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as summarized below (and as further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2. of EPA’s TSD to this Federal Register action). 1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity. This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE monitors). As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that was adopted for use by the IMPROVE E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 11964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules Steering Committee in December 2005.8 The purpose of this refinement to the ‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide more accurate estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light extinction. Missouri opted to use the default estimates for natural conditions for the 20 percent best days while using the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for the 20 percent worst days for its two Class I areas described in Table 1 below. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions using the new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area by CENRAP. The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review of the science 9 and it accounts for the effect of particle size distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new IMPROVE equations. 2. Estimating Baseline Conditions Missouri estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Hercules Glades Wilderness area (Hercules Glades) using monitoring data from the Hercules Glades IMPROVE monitoring site. Missouri estimated the baseline visibility conditions at the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (Mingo) using the Mingo IMPROVE monitoring site. As explained in Section III. B., for the first regional haze SIP, baseline visibility conditions are the same as current conditions. A five-year average of the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at each Missouri Class I area. See page 2–8 of EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. Table 1 below specifies the 20 percent best and worst days for the baseline period of 2000–2004 for Hercules Glades and Mingo. 3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions For the Hercules Glades Class I area, baseline visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days are approximately 26.75 dv. For the Mingo Class I area, baseline visibility conditions on the 20 percent worst days are approximately 28.02 dv. Natural visibility conditions for the Mingo Class I area is best represented by 12.40 dv for the 20 percent worst days. The Hercules Glades Wilderness Class I area is best represented by 11.30 dv for the 20 percent worst days. The natural and baseline conditions for Missouri’s Class I areas for both the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below. TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE MISSOURI CLASS I AREAS Average for 20% worst days (dv) Class I area Natural Background Conditions: Mingo ................................................................................................................................................................ Hercules Glades ............................................................................................................................................... Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004): Mingo ................................................................................................................................................................ Hercules Glades ............................................................................................................................................... Average for 20% best days (dv) 12.40 11.30 3.59 3.59 28.02 26.75 13.76 12.84 In setting the RPGs, Missouri considered the uniform rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to the glidepath. The State’s implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days, for its two Class I areas. (Figures 8.1 and 8.2 of the Missouri SIP). Missouri constructed the graph for the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a straight graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to the level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for its two areas. For the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, straight line spanning from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to depict no degradation in visibility over the implementation period of the SIP. Missouri’s SIP shows that the State’s RPGs for its areas provide for improvement in visibility for the 20 8 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-related research, including the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy formulation and source attribution field studies. 9 The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is summarized in Appendix B.2 of the Missouri Regional Haze submittal and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. https:// vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/ GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006 https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s determination of baseline and natural conditions. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 4. Uniform Rate of Progress VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules percent worst days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over the same period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). For the Hercules Glades Class I area, the overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between baseline visibility of 26.75 dv for the 20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 11.30 dv, i.e., 15.45 dv. Over the sixtyyear period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average improvement of 0.258 dv per year to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the first fourteenyear implementation period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Hercules Glades, Missouri would need to achieve at least 3.61 dv (i.e., 0.258 dv × 14 years = 3.61 dv) of visibility improvement from the 26.75 dv baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 23.14 dv in 2018. As discussed below in section IV. C, ‘‘Reasonable Progress Goals,’’ Missouri projects a 3.69 dv improvement to visibility from the 26.75 dv baseline to 23.06 dv in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 0.89 dv improvement to 11.95 dv from the baseline visibility of 12.84 dv for the 20 percent least impaired days. For the Mingo Class I area, the overall visibility improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between baseline visibility of 28.02 dv for the 20 percent worst days and natural conditions of 12.40 dv, i.e., 15.62 dv. Over the sixty-year period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average improvement of 0.260 dv per year to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the first fourteen-year implementation period from 2004 to 2018, in order to achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Mingo, the State would need to achieve at least 3.64 dv (i.e., 0.260 dv × 14 years = 3.64 dv) of visibility improvement from the 28.02 dv baseline in 2004, resulting in visibility levels at or below 24.37 dv in 2018. As discussed below in section IV. C, ‘‘Reasonable Progress Goals,’’ Missouri projects a 4.31 dv improvement to visibility from the 28.02 dv baseline to 23.71 dv in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 0.92 dv improvement to 12.84 dv from the baseline visibility of 13.76 dv for the 20 percent least impaired days. 11965 EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s determination of the uniform rate of progress for its Class I area. C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) Missouri has established RPGs for its Class I areas for the first ten year period of the plan. The RPGs provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. As described above in the Uniform Rate of Progress discussion and further detailed in the TSD for today’s action, Missouri has determined that the modeled rate of visibility improvement by 2018, shown in Table 2 below, is reasonable and has adopted it as the RPG for the listed Class I areas. The RPGs demonstrate that Missouri’s visibility impact will be below the uniform rate of progress necessary to achieve natural visibility for the 20 percent worst days by the year 2064. Additionally, the modeled impact on the 20 percent best days shows no degradation from baseline conditions. The modeling inputs, methodologies, and consideration of controls are further described in the Long-Term Strategy section under IV.E. below. TABLE 2—2018 REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS Baseline conditions, 20% worst days (dv) Class I area Mingo ................................................................................... Hercules Glades .................................................................. 2018 URP 28.02 26.75 2018 Modeled 20% worst days (goals) Baseline conditions, 20% best days (dv) 2018 Modeled 20% best days 23.71 23.06 13.76 12.84 12.84 11.95 24.37 23.14 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS NOTE: All units are in deciviews. In establishing the RPGs for Missouri’s Class I areas, the State took into consideration the four statutory factors identified from 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. Missouri demonstrates that these four factors were applied in determining control strategy options for all source categories including point sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources, which are also included in the State’s Long-Term Strategy analysis described in section IV. E of this notice. That section identifies the control measures Missouri is relying upon to achieve the RPGs. In addition to these four factors, other related CAA related programs VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 were evaluated to determine what effect these programs have had or will have on existing and future sources, and if any other control strategies would be reasonable in terms of the four factors described above. For most sources, the State determined that CAA programs or rules such as NSR permitting, NSPS standards, MACT standards, on-road and off-road engine standards, Clean Air Interstate Rule, fuel standards, and various State rules were reasonable, and for these sources no other measures were deemed appropriate based on the four factors. In addition, if other reasonable control strategies are identified for these sources that contribute to visibility impairment, beyond those implemented through this plan, the State has committed to incorporate such strategies into future SIP revisions to be considered along with the five-year progress reports. PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 To demonstrate that it properly analyzed the four factors, Missouri relies upon the following: (1) An independent analysis completed by Missouri; (2) a cost analysis by CENRAP; (3) a published report by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and (4) a description of the costeffectiveness and visibility impacts from the Clean Air Interstate Rule on Missouri’s Class I areas. Further detailed information is provided in the TSD for today’s action, as well as in the State’s SIP. Missouri’s independent analysis primarily discusses the adequacy of its current New Source Review permitting process in addressing visibility impacts of new sources, and also provides a statewide point source emissions analysis in consideration of the four factors. Missouri describes that when the State performs a BACT analyses for E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules new sources, the State takes into account the same four factors that are required for developing control strategies under a Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. Additionally, all new stationary emission sources are required to obtain a construction permit prior to commencing construction and must ensure that no significant degradation to visibility in Class I areas will occur. For EGU sources, Missouri relies upon CAIR as part of its four factor analysis to demonstrate that ongoing air pollution control programs are sufficient to meet the 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress for the Missouri Class I areas. For existing non Electric Generating Units (non-EGU) sources, the State demonstrates through a four factor analysis that existing SIP requirements that cover broad non-EGU emission source categories adequately address visibility impacts in Missouri’s Class I areas. Missouri reached this conclusion by analyzing non-EGU point sources emitting greater than 50 tons per year of NOX, SO2, and PM10. Missouri removed from consideration sources that had already undergone a refined modeling BART analysis or were located in the St. Louis PM2.5 nonattainment area, where sources had recently been subject to a RACT/RACM analysis as part of the development of the attainment plan. Missouri used two different methods to analyze the emissions from these remaining sources. The first was to demonstrate on a mass basis, that the level of emissions from these sources were not likely to have a significant impact on visibility impairment on Missouri’s Class I areas. Thus, Missouri determined that researching and analyzing new control requirements for these sources would not be noticeably beneficial to visibility in either of Missouri’s Class I areas. For the second, the State conducted a Q/D review of these sources, which is an acceptable screening tool for BART sources, that considers a source’s annual emissions in relationship to the distance from Class I areas. As a result of this analysis, Missouri identified five sources that required further examination: Royal Oak Enterprises; Aqualon Division of Hercules; Lone Star Industries; Chemical Lime Company; and Natural Gas Pipeline Company. Missouri determined that additional controls for these sources were not warranted for one of the following reasons: (1) Recent permit revisions limit the pollutant of concern; (2) implementation of a compliance agreement that requires the shutdown of emissions units coupled with operation limits on remaining units; (3) a recent BACT analysis was VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 undertaken; or (4) cost effective controls were not available and the units are nearing the end of their useful life. A more in-depth discussion of Missouri’s approach is provided in the State’s technical supplement and EPA’s TSD. In addition, the State also relied upon a cost analysis provide by the CENRAP RPO that examined the availability of controls in the CENRAP states that impact visibility in Hercules Glades and Mingo. The analysis primarily looked at controls on EGUs, industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers, internal combustion engines, and cement kilns. Most of the Missouri facilities identified in the analysis were EGUs already participating in federal CAIR rule. The State considered but did not adopt the recommendations for additional controls for non-EGUs due to one or more of the following reasons: • Proposed controls are not cost effective • Emissions from sources within the source category are below a threshold limit of 100 tons • Sources passed the BART screening analysis • Sources already installed controls required by the NOX SIP Call. In addition to the CENRAP analyses, the MRPO and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency published a report on the four-factor analysis (referred to as the ‘‘4-factor report’’ in the docket). The report examined the factors in a ninestate area (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, and South Dakota.). The 4-factor report primarily reviewed controls on EGUs; ICI boilers; reciprocating engines and turbines, and mobile sources. Missouri has determined based on the cost of compliance and remaining useful life of these sources, that additional controls are not reasonably available for nonEGU sources in the development of RPGs in Missouri. Missouri specifically concludes from the report that additional controls from ICI boilers, reciprocating engines, combustion turbines and other point sources are not warranted based on cost of controls and visibility improvement. Missouri determined that for EGUs, emission reductions predicted to result from CAIR would be sufficient for ensuring reasonable progress during the first implementation period (between baseline and 2018). EPA proposes to find that Missouri has appropriately established goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The goals provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the plan and ensure PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 no degradation in visibility over the same period. In addition, the State has demonstrated consideration of the four statutory factors, consistent with EPA guidance, in developing the RPGs. D. BART BART is an element of Missouri’s LTS for the first implementation period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources; (b) an assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART; and (c) a determination of the BART controls. These components as addressed by Missouri and Missouri’s findings are discussed as follows. 1. BART-Eligible Sources The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-eligible sources within the State’s boundaries. Missouri identified its BART-eligible sources by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA’s regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) emission unit(s) was construction on or after August 6, 1962, and was in existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year. The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2, NOX and direct PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from a source impair visibility in an area. 70 FR 39160. Missouri analyzed anthropogenic emissions for both VOC and NH3 during their emission inventory review and determined that these pollutants from the State’s point sources are not anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes. Missouri listed the following reasons for not performing a further analysis on these pollutants after the emission inventory review: (1) The majority of VOC emissions in Missouri are biogenic in nature and specifically the areas near Mingo and Hercules Glades are very rich in biogenic emissions (limited ability to reduce organic concentrations at the Class I areas); (2) the largest areas of anthropogenic VOC emissions in Missouri exist in the metropolitan areas (St. Louis and Kansas City) where VOC emission control has been undertaken to address ozone attainment issues E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 11967 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules result of 10 CSR 10–6.330; (4) the overall ammonia inventory is very uncertain and the amount of anthropogenic emissions at the sources that were BART-eligible was relatively small; and (5) no additional sources were identified that had greater than (meaning large VOC sources have already been controlled); (3) the other category that would have substantial, uncontrolled VOC emissions is charcoal kilns, Missouri required existing charcoal kilns to install afterburners or shutdown noncompliant kilns as a 250 tons per year NH3 and required a subsequent BART analysis. After reviewing their sources the State found 27 BART-eligible sources. These sources are listed in Table 3 below. TABLE 3—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI SIC code BART source category name Facility ID Facility name BART-eligible emission units Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 MMBTU (1).* (1)* ................................................... (1)* ................................................... (1)* ................................................... (1)* ................................................... 4911 29–071–0003 Ameren-Labadie .............................. Boiler 1—B1, Boiler 2—B2, Boiler 3—B3, and Boiler 4—B4 4911 4911 4911 4911 29–183–0001 29–099–0016 29–095–0031 29–143–0004 Ameren-Sioux .................................. Ameren-Rush Island ........................ Aquila-Sibley .................................... Associated Electric-New Madrid ..... (1)* ................................................... (1)* ................................................... 4911 4911 29–077–0039 29–077–0005 (1)* ................................................... (1)* ................................................... 4911 4911 29–097–0001 29–083–0001 (1)* ................................................... (1)* ................................................... 4911 4911 29–021–0004 29–175–0001 City Utilities Springfield-Southwest City Utilities Springfield-James River. Empire District Electric-Asbury ........ Kansas City Power and LightMontrose. Aquila-Lake Road ............................ Associated Electric-Thomas Hill ...... Boiler 1—B1 and Boiler Boiler 1—B1 and Boiler Boiler 3—5C Boiler 1—EP–01 and EP—02 Boiler 1—E09 Utility Boiler #4—E07 Boiler #5—E08 Boiler—7 Boiler Unit 3—EP08 (1) ..................................................... (1) ..................................................... 4911 4911 29–095–0021 29–019–0002 (1) ..................................................... (1) ..................................................... 4911 4911 29–195–0010 29–095–0050 Portland cement plants (4) .............. (4) ..................................................... (4) ..................................................... 3241 3241 3241 29–099–0002 29–173–0001 29–163–0001 Trigen-Kansas City .......................... City of Columbia Municipal Power Plant. Marshall Municipal Utilities .............. Independence Power and LightBlue Valley. RC Cement ...................................... Continental Cement ......................... Holcim-Clarksville ............................ Primary aluminum ore reduction plants (7). 3334 29–143–0008 Noranda Aluminum .......................... Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants (10). Lime plants (12) ............................... 2873 29–163–0031 Dyno Nobel-Lomo Plant .................. 3274 29–186–0001 Mississippi Lime .............................. Primary lead smelters (17) .............. (17) ................................................... 3339 3339 29–099–0003 29–093–0008 Doe Run-Herculaneum .................... Doe Run-Glover .............................. Secondary metal production facilities (20). (20) ................................................... Chemical Process Plants (21) ......... 3341 29–087–0001 Exide Technologies ......................... 3339 2879 29–093–0009 29–127–0001 Doe Run-Buick ................................ BASF Corporation ........................... Fossil-fuel boilers >250 MMBTUs per hour (22). 4911 29–019–0004 University of Missouri-Columbia ...... Boiler Boiler 02 Boiler Boiler 2—B2 2—B2 Boiler 2— and Utility 6—EP06 1—EP–01 and Boiler 2—EP– 1A #7—EP02 Coal-Fired Boiler—EP05 Boiler #3—EP05 4–K–02 (Kiln) KP01 (Kiln) Kiln—EP14 and a variety of supporting units Potlines 1 & 2—EP–59, 60, & 61, Carbon Bake 1 and 2 Stacks— EP 98 & 99, and a variety of supporting units** Ammonia Oxidation Process—E01 Peerless Rotary Kilns 3, 4, 5 & 6— EP–68–71 Blast Furnace—EP059 Sinter Plant—EP–01 and Other Units at the facility Main Stack—EP01 Main Stack—EP08 PR08—HNO3 Storage Tank, PR53/ 54 Incinerators, TC01 Incinerator, UTIL07—2 Gas-fired boilers Boiler 10 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS * BART-eligible EGU units included in the CAIR assumed to be BART for SO2 and NOX. EPA is proposing to find that the State appropriately identified its BARTeligible sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines. 2. BART-Subject Sources The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow States to consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, Missouri required each of its BART-eligible sources to PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas or Missouri performed the analysis for the source. E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 11968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules a. Modeling Methodology The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF 10 modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to therefore, determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to BART’’. The Guidelines state that EPA believes CALPUFF is the best regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a single source’s contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162). Missouri, in coordination with CENRAP, used the CALPUFF modeling system to determine whether individual sources in Missouri were subject to or exempt from BART. The BART Guidelines also recommend that States develop a modeling protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues prior to modeling. The CENRAP States, including Missouri, developed a ‘‘Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’ Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups, and other interested parties, actively participated in the development and review of the CENRAP protocol. Missouri performed an initial screening CALPUFF analysis for the BART-eligible sources on the two Class I area’s within the State along with Upper Buffalo in Arkansas and Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, depending on the individual source location. The screening runs took the maximum visibility impacts and compared them to the contribution threshold discussed below. Those sources with a maximum impact below the contribution threshold were excluded from additional BART analysis based on their minimal visibility impacts. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS b. Contribution Threshold For States using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set a 10 Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF modeling system are available from the model developer on the following Web site: https://www.src.com/verio/download/ download.htm. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 dv change or more should be considered to ‘cause’ visibility impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines also state that ‘‘the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source ‘contributes to visibility impairment’ may reasonably differ across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for determining whether a source ‘contributes’ to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 dv.’’ The BART Guidelines affirm that States are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a Class I area justifies this approach. Missouri used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining which sources are subject to BART as there are a limited number of BARTeligible sources in close proximity to each of the State’s Class I areas. EPA agrees with the State’s rationale for choosing this threshold value. For the Missouri sources that were shown to be impacting the Class I areas, Missouri demonstrated that they were located far from the Class I area and that the majority of the individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5 d. c. Identification of Sources Subject to BART Missouri initially identified twenty seven facilities with BART-eligible sources. Missouri chose to use multiple methods to exclude sources from a full BART demonstration. Missouri grouped their sources into four categories. The first category included the EGU sources that relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and NOX, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Prior to the CAIR remand, the State’s reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was fully approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). As explained above, we are not proposing to take action in today’s rulemaking on issues associated with Missouri’s reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP, including BART for SO2 and NOX for EGUs. In a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval of Missouri’s regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA of CAIR See, 76 FR 82219. PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Given Missouri’s reliance on CAIR to address the BART requirements for SO2 and NOX, these facilities were only required to evaluate PM emissions in their BART determinations. These sources were modeled collectively for PM only and the modeling demonstrated that the group of EGU sources as a whole contributed less than the 0.5 dv contribution threshold for PM. Based on this analysis the State excluded this group of sources from being BART-subject for PM. The second group of sources was those where the BART unit was permanently shut down or where the source no longer had an operating permit for the BART unit. These sources were excluded from further BART analysis because the units in question would have to perform a BACT analysis before resuming operations. The third group consisted of a single source that had undergone a recent permit that required a BACT review. Missouri performed a refined CALPUFF demonstration eliminating this source from further BART analysis based on modeled visibility impacts less than the 0.5 dv threshold. Missouri conducted a refined BART modeling analysis using CALPUFF for the fourth group of sources made up of the eight remaining sources. The sources are University of Missouri-Columbia, Noranda, BASF Corporation-Palmyra, Independence Power and Light-Blue Valley, Columbia Municipal Power Plant, Marshall Municipal Utilities, Doe Run Buick, and Holcim-Clarksville. Using the modeling methodology described above, Missouri excluded all but one source, HolcimClarksville, from being BART-subject based on modeled visibility impacts below 0.5 dv. The full description of the process Missouri used to identify BARTsubject sources is included in section K of the TSD. After review of the State’s method for determining BART-subject sources and the refined analysis of those sources, EPA is proposing to find that the State appropriately identified all of the sources in the State that are BARTsubject in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines. 3. BART Determinations In making BART determinations, CAA section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) require that States 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 E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. This five step analysis is commonly referred to as a ‘‘five factor analysis.’’ As stated above, Missouri only had one BART source, Holcim-Clarksville, that required a full five factor analysis. As described above and in detail in the TSD, the remaining subject to BART sources were either included in CAIR or have been exempted from a BART analysis due to lack of visibility impacts above the contribution threshold, eligible units were shutdown, or BACT had been applied. For Holcim-Clarksville, Missouri required the source to submit a full BART analysis which considered the five factors. Holcim submitted three separate BART analyses, the first in April 2008 with revised submittals in June and July 2008. The submittals addressed the five factors including looking at the various available control options for SO2 and NOX control. For SO2, three technically feasible options were identified, wet lime scrubbing, fuel substitution and dry lime scrubbing. For NOX, two feasible control technologies were identified: mid-kiln firing and selective noncatalytic reduction. For SO2, wet lime scrubbing could provide reductions of 95 percent resulting in actual SO2 reductions of 10,326 tons/yr at a cost of $2,428/ton of SO2 removed. Visibility modeling of this control technology was performed assuming a 87.5 percent control efficiency resulting in modeled visibility improvements between 0.4– 0.53 dv at the three Class 1 areas evaluated. Dry lime scrubbing (DLS) was also evaluated using control efficiencies estimated up to 30 percent resulting in actual reductions of 3,272 tons/yr at a cost of $4,500/ton of SO2 removed. DLS was modeled assuming a control efficiency of 25 percent resulting in visibility improvements of 0.11–0.14 dv at the three Class 1 areas evaluated. Fuel substitution provided 23–50 percent control, depending on the substitute fuel chosen. Reductions of actual SO2 emissions between 2,641 tons and 5,741 tons could be achieved at a cost of $1,489/ton to $4,741/ton SO2 reduced. Visibility improvements at the three Class I areas ranged from 0.09– 0.14 dv using the 23 percent reduction to 0.23–0.31 dv using a 45 percent reduction. For NOX both mid-kiln firing and selective noncatalytic reduction were identified as viable control options. Low-NOX burners, Cement Kiln Dust Insufflation, and Synfuel were noted as controls already used at the plant. Both mid-kiln firing and selective VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 noncatalytic reduction were estimated to provide emissions reductions of 20 percent resulting in actual NOX reductions of 1,283 tons/yr. The midkiln firing was estimated to cost $464/ ton while selective noncatalytic reduction was estimated to cost approximately $2,200/ton. With identical control efficiencies both options result in modeled visibility improvements of 0.01–0.09 dv at the three Class I areas evaluated. Missouri comprehensively reviewed the source’s three BART analyses and determined that the mid-kiln firing of tires (using 12 percent total heat input substitution) and a switch from petroleum coke as the primary kiln fuel to 3 percent sulfur coal (along with the tire derived fuel for NOX control) would constitute BART for this source. For the SO2 control, Missouri eliminated the two scrubbing options based on cost per ton of cement produced (∼$15–20/ton produced.) The cost of the selected control for SO2 reductions was calculated at $1,148/ton or about $3/ton cement produced. For NOX the State was concerned with the use of SNCR on the wet kiln and the MKF option provided the same control effectiveness. Thus, Missouri decided the certainty of reductions associated with mid-kiln firing coupled with the existing controls at the facility was the best option after considering cost and certainty of available controls as provided by the kiln designer. As part of the BART analysis, Missouri required the source to pursue more aggressive emission limits than originally recommended based on the cost analysis of feasible controls. The required controls will result in a 20 percent reduction of NOX and a 27 percent reduction of SO2 from the maximum thirty-day average emissions using the CEM data. The full description of the BART analysis for HolcimClarksville is included in the TSD accompanying this notice. To incorporate the emission rates, compliance schedule, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and enforceability requirements, as defined by the CAA and Federal regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv) and (v) as well as the BART Guidelines, the State entered into a Consent Agreement with Holcim-Clarksville on April 19, 2009. The Consent Agreement was submitted to EPA for SIP approval as part of the State’s RH SIP submittal (Appendix S), which EPA is proposing to approve in this notice. The Consent Agreement is enforceable by the State, and upon approval into the State’s SIP, is enforceable by EPA. The emission rates, or work practices, included in the Consent Agreement are summarized PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 11969 below. The Consent Agreement requires the Holcim-Clarksville Plant kiln system (Emission Point ID EP–14 main kiln stack) to meet the following rates, or work practices, within four years after the EPA approves the State’s RH SIP or expeditiously as practicable: (1) NOX—42,287 lb/day using a thirty day rolling average. (2) SO2—58,787 lb/day using a thirty day rolling average. (3) The facility must monitor using existing CEMS. (4) The facility must comply with 40 CFR, part 60, appendix F or an equivalent procedure for quality assurance demonstrations of the CEMS. (5) The facility must retain records demonstrating compliance for a period of no less than five years. (6) An annual report detailing daily and thirty day rolling average SO2 and NOX emission rates must be submitted to Missouri starting 1 year and 60 days after EPA SIP approval. Missouri documented, via CALPUFF modeling, an improvement in visibility at affected Class I areas using the BART emissions limits for Holcim-Clarksville. While post-BART control modeled impacts at Mingo are still slightly above 0.5 dv, the overall modeled impairment has significantly improved with the proposed BART controls. EPA is proposing to find that the State has met the requirements for establishing BART emission limitations and schedules for compliance with those emission limitations for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I area, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e) and the BART Guidelines. EPA is proposing to approve all required elements of Missouri’s Regional Haze SIP related to BART for non-EGU sources, including, specifically, the BART emission rates, compliance schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e) and the BART Guidelines, and the Consent Agreement for Holcim-Clarksville. E. Long-Term Strategy 1. Technical Basis for Long-Term Strategy Missouri’s plan adequately addresses the LTS requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii). Missouri’s LTS analysis for the first implementation period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, State, and local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Missouri LTS was developed by the State, in E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 11970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS coordination with the CENRAP RPO, through an evaluation of the following components: (1) Identification of the emission units within Missouri and in surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts currently on visibility at the State’s two Class I areas; (2) estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls required or expected under Federal and state regulations for the 2004–2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the State’s Class I areas; and (4) application of the four statutory factors in the reasonable progress analysis for the identified emission units to determine if additional reasonable controls were required. In this analysis the State demonstrates that the compilation of State-specific control measures relied on by the State achieves its RPGs. The CENRAP applied the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) and Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) models in the modeling simulation. CAMx is a computer modeling system for the integrated assessment of photochemical and particulate air pollution. CAMx incorporates all of the technical attributes demanded of state-of-the-art photochemical grid models, including two-way grid nesting, a subgrid-scale Plume-in-Grid module to treat early dispersion of chemistry of point source NOX plumes, and a fast chemistry solver. The CMAQ model is an eulerian model that simulates the atmospheric surface processes affecting the transport, transformation and deposition of air pollutants and their precursors. An eulerian model computes the numerical solution of partial differential equations of plumes on a fixed grid. The use of these models to determine impacts from emissions within state on visibility impairment is approved by EPA. Missouri documented and EPA has reviewed the selection of the episodes, modeling domain, emissions inventories, emissions modeling, meteorological inputs, and model performance evaluation. More detailed information on methodologies is provided in Appendix F of the state’s submittal. 2. Identification of Sources and Factors to be Considered Missouri has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv–v). The State is required to identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its LTS. The State should consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. The VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 State must consider, at a minimum, the following factors in developing its longterm strategy: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (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 emission 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. The State’s technical analysis identifies all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its LTS. In this analysis, the State considered the impacts from major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. The State documents the ‘‘on the books’’ ongoing emissions control strategies considered in the modeling that includes the following: • Clean Air Interstate Rule • Best Available Control Technology • Tier 2 Federal Mobile Source Emission Standards • Tier 4 Nonroad Emission Standards • NOX SIP Call • St. Louis PM2.5 SO2 and NOX RACT • Illinois Multi-Pollutant Regulation In a separate notice proposing limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of a number of States, EPA noted that these States relied on the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the State-adopted reasonable progress goals. (76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011). In that notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Missouri’s LTS insofar as it relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are not taking action on that aspect of the long-term strategy in this notice. Comments on that proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 0729. In development of the LTS, Missouri also took into account measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities through the implementation of the NSR permitting program. Source retirement and replacement schedules of sources were included in the development of the future year inventory modeling scenario. Missouri has documented that emissions limitations and control measures PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 utilized in the modeling are enforceable by Missouri law through section 643 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. These rules can be found in Appendix V of the State’s submittal. The emission inventory utilized for Missouri takes into account the net effect on visibility resulting from projected changes to emissions including changes to point, area and mobile source inventories by the end of the first implementation period resulting from population growth; industrial, energy and natural resources development; land management; and air pollution control. The net effect on visibility in Missouri Class I areas resulting from these emission differences is discussed in the CENRAP Technical Support Document (Appendix F of the State’s submittal). Missouri has also met the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) to consider smoke management techniques for the purposes of agricultural and forestry management in developing the LTS. The purpose of the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) adopted by Missouri is to identify the responsibilities of MDNR, FLMs, and state land managers to coordinate procedures that mitigate the impacts on public health, safety, and visibility of prescribed fire and wildland fire used for resource benefits. This plan is designed to meet the policies of the EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires (April 1998) and addresses smoke management through various procedures and requirements in place at various agencies throughout the State. F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) EPA’s visibility regulations direct States to coordinate their RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as explained in sections III.F. and III.G. of this action. Under EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a State SIP must address any integral vistas identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ‘‘view perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any integral vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any integral vistas in Missouri. In addition, none of the Class I areas in Missouri is experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected by the RAVI provisions. Therefore, the Missouri regional haze SIP submittal does not explicitly E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze SIP with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. We propose to find that this submittal appropriately supplements and augments the Missouri’s RAVI visibility provisions to address regional haze by updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as summarized in this notice. G. Emissions Inventory Missouri was required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include baseline year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data is available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State provided an inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. As required, the inventory includes emissions for a baseline year (2002), the most recent year for which data are available at the time, and estimates of future year (2018) projected emissions along with a commitment to update the inventory periodically. As specified in the EPA guidance document, Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations (August 2005), Missouri’s 11971 regional haze emissions inventory includes carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine particulate (PM2.5), coarse particulate (PM10), and ammonia (NH3). Missouri used the CENRAP Base G emissions inventory for both the baseline year of 2002 and future year of 2018 as described in Table 4 below. Missouri has committed to periodic updates to the emissions inventory and EPA believes that the State has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). More detailed information regarding the methodologies used in the current emissions estimates including the future year projections are further described in Chapter 7.0 and Appendix H 1–8 of the State’s plan. TABLE 4—MISSOURI 2002–2018 INVENTORY Source sector NOX (TPY*) SO2 (TPY) PM10 (TPY) PM2.5 (TPY) CO (TPY) VOC (TPY) NH3 (TPY) 2002 Missouri Emissions Inventory Summary Point EGU** ....................... Point NEGU*** ................... Area .................................... Offroad Mobile ................... Onroad Mobile ................... Fire ..................................... Ag and Soil Ammonia ........ Fugitive Dust ...................... Road Dust .......................... Biogenics ............................ 145,437.9 36,143.8 31,337.8 99,305.6 189,852.3 3,539.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 22,518.6 272,128.1 97,117.0 48,510.9 9,350.5 5,353.5 936.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,093.2 15,092.2 29,975.9 13,063.5 4,486.6 12,407.2 0.0 95,240.0 367,390.3 0.0 2,523.2 7,045.3 26,385.8 11,985.3 3,297.4 10,642.3 0.0 19,006.9 55,011.6 0.0 11,357.0 107,756.3 135,292.9 754,272.8 1,585,277.1 151,389.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 134,123.4 1,796.4 38,473.6 204,940.2 141,183.3 97,245.6 12,867.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,428,260.0 19.2 6,233.9 2,276.7 73.9 5,993.5 1,447.2 152,904.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals .......................... 528,135.5 433,396.3 541,748.9 135,897.8 2,879,469.2 1,924,767.1 168,948.5 2018 Missouri Emissions Inventory Summary Point EGU .......................... Point NEGU ....................... Area .................................... Offroad Mobile ................... Onroad Mobile ................... Fire ..................................... Ag and Soil Ammonia ........ Fugitive Dust ...................... Road Dust .......................... Biogenics ............................ 84,619.8 49,290.8 35,212.8 59,624.9 50,860.9 3,539.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 22,518.6 289,330.1 66,731.1 49,726.1 565.2 797.4 936.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18,958.2 23,598.8 29,193.0 8,371.3 1,415.5 12,407.2 0.0 106,045.3 313,576.4 0.0 17,036.6 10,171.7 25,528.5 7,675.0 1,415.5 10,642.3 0.0 21,147.2 46,957.9 0.0 15,752.7 184,350.9 120,114.9 739,932.9 895,481.6 151,389.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 134,123.4 2,080.5 54,908.6 265,737.4 72,794.1 39,672.3 12,867.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,428,260.0 874.4 8,600.2 4,411.8 84.8 8,316.0 1,447.2 182,451.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals .......................... 305,667.4 408,086.1 513,565.8 140,574.6 2,241,146.0 1,876,320.7 206,185.9 * Tons per Year. ** Electric Generating Unit. *** Non-Electric Generating Unit. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS H. Monitoring Strategy The State’s plan must include a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all Class I areas within the State and/or summarize monitoring strategy of States with affected Class I areas. Missouri demonstrates compliance with this requirement through participation in the IMPROVE network. In Missouri, IMPROVE sites VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 are located at Hercules Glades and Mingo Class I areas. An IMPROVE protocol sampler is located at the site near El Dorado Springs. Missouri commits to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA visibility data for each of Missouri’s Class I areas annually. EPA proposes to find that Missouri’s monitoring strategy meets all requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 I. Consultation The State of Missouri has met the FLM consultation requirement. 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that States provide a description of how they addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. A description of the consultation process is provided in Appendix E of the State SIP, United States Central Class I Areas Consultation Plan, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 2007. In addition, the minutes from those meetings are in E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 11972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules Appendix U of the State’s plan. EPA believes that Missouri has adequately responded to the comments received from the FLMs and from EPA. Regional haze SIPs must also provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR 51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and five-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas. The State of Missouri has committed to continuing to coordinate and consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal areas. EPA proposes to find that the State of Missouri has satisfied the consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 (i). As discussed in IV. E above, the as part of the long-term strategy requirements of the rule, provision 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) specifically describes that, where the State has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in another State or States, the State must consult with other State(s) in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. The State must consult with any other State having emissions that are regionally anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State. Further, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) states that where other States cause or contribute to impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area, the State must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the area. If the State has participated in a regional planning process, the State must ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. EPA proposes that Missouri has met these requirements. Missouri has consulted with other States/tribes in CENRAP, Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), the Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO), FLMs and EPA Regions 5, 6 and 7 on development of coordinated strategies for Central Class I areas that include Mingo, Hercules Glades, Upper Buffalo, and Caney Creek. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 Technical analyses, such as Area of Influence (AOI) and source apportionment, were developed as part of consultation planning to determine contributing states and are documented in Appendix E of the State’s plan. Missouri provided the Regional Haze Plan to the FLMs for review on August 23, 2007, and notified the FLMs that a public hearing would be held on this plan at a later date. The FLMs provided early comments on the draft plan and a conference call between Missouri, FLMs, and EPA Region 7 was conducted on September 2, 2007, to discuss the comments. Missouri considered all comments the FLMs provided on the early draft of the plan. Regional modeling and other findings were used to develop RPGs for the Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas based on the existing and proposed controls through both State and Federal requirements. It was also determined that these RPGs will meet the established URP goals by 2018. The consultation process determined which States significantly impacted the Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas. The State’s coordination with FLMs on long-term strategy development is described in Chapter 11 of the State’s plan. The consultation was completed based on a determination that reasonable progress was achieved by contributing states. Additionally, the State entered into a consultation process with Oklahoma and Minnesota. The consultation processes for the Wichita Mountains (WIMO) Class I area in Oklahoma was completed prior to the August 5, 2009 submittal of this plan. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality indicated their belief that Missouri sources impact WIMO. However, in response to the Oklahoma consultation letter, Missouri replied with a letter recommending that the rationale for determining States contributing to impact on WIMO deserved further examination. As further described in Chapter 4.2 of the State’s plan, Missouri determined, in part, from a Particulate Matter Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) analysis that it is not clear that additional controls in Missouri would be reasonable to address visibility in WIMO. Based on the PSAT analysis presented, Missouri described that over half the elevated point-source impacts to WIMO are due to sources in Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana and most of the area source impacts are due to Oklahoma and Texas sources. Missouri determined that controls appear likely to be more efficient in those states, on a cost-perton basis, than additional controls in PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Missouri. Therefore no additional controls on Missouri sources were required and Oklahoma and did not request any specific additional controls. Minnesota identified Missouri as a contributing State based on Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) 2002–2003 Trajectory analysis or LADCO 2018 PSAT modeling analysis which showed over a 5 percent total contribution to haze at either of Minnesota’s Class I areas. Missouri noted that the criteria are met marginally at 5.2 percent for 2018 PSAT for the Boundary Waters area only. Missouri cited that separate analyses conducted as part of the Causes of Haze II Study, and affirmed by the CENRAP PSAT and Area of Influence analysis, indicate high impact from Minnesota sources, with only a small impact by out of state sources. Based on these analyses, Missouri concluded that additional controls on Missouri’s sources are not necessary due to the expected minimal visibility impact at the Boundary Waters Class I area. EPA also notes that Minnesota did not request any specific additional controls from Missouri. EPA proposes that Missouri has met the consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and has also demonstrated that its implementation plan includes all measures necessary to obtain its fair share of emission reductions needed to meet RPGs as required in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports Missouri is required to commit to meet the SIP revision schedule as determined by the RHR. The State makes its commitment to meet this requirement in Chapter 11 and 12 of its plan. EPA believes the State’s commitment to meet these schedules meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (g) of the RHR. The State affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress report in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following the initial submittal of the Missouri regional haze SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs each mandatory Class I area located within the State of Missouri and in each mandatory Class I area located outside of the State which may be affected by emissions from within Missouri. If another State’s regional haze SIP identifies that Missouri’s SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after appropriate consultation Missouri agrees, today’s action may be revisited, or additional information and/or E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules changes will be addressed in the fiveyear progress report SIP revision. VI. What action is EPA proposing? EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Missouri SIP submitted by the State of Missouri on August 5, 2009, and supplemented on January 30, 2012. In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing to take action in today’s rulemaking on issues associated with Missouri’s reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS B. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of information’’ as a requirement for answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this action. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.’’ Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 11973 required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This rule 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, because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ 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. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1 11974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: February 15, 2012. Karl Brooks, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. 2012–4681 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS [EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0150, FRL–9638–1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 27, 2012 Jkt 226001 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Iowa on March 25, 2008, that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period. This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’) and the EPA’s rules that require States to prevent any future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of this SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for Iowa on the basis that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the Iowa SIP. In a separate action, EPA previously proposed a limited disapproval of the Iowa regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State’s regional haze SIP arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). Therefore, we are not taking action in this notice to address the State’s reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– OAR–2012–0150, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (913) 551–7864 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments). 4. Mail: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy Wolfersberger. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00197 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.: EPA–R07–OAR–2012– 0150. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https:// 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 through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https:// www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without going through https://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 information about the EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/ dockets.htm. Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the https://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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning and Development Branch, EPA Region 7 Office, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. You may view the hard copy of the docket E:\FR\FM\28FEP1.SGM 28FEP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11958-11974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4681]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0153, FRL-9638-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Missouri; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the
Missouri State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Missouri through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) on
August 5, 2009, and supplemental information submitted on January 30,
2012, that addresses regional haze for the first implementation period.
This revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act'') and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any future and
remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous
sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the
``regional haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable
progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions in Class I areas. EPA is proposing a limited approval of
this SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for
Missouri on the basis that the revision, as a whole, strengthens the
Missouri SIP. In a separate action EPA has previously proposed a
limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze SIP because of
deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal arising from
the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of
Columbia (DC Circuit) to the EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). See 76 FR 82219. Therefore, we are not taking action in this
notice to address the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional
haze requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2012-0153 by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
3. Fax: 913-551-7884 (please alert the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments.
4. Mail: Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Air Planning and Development Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2012-0153. 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 through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
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

[[Page 11959]]

viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. You may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning
and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Chrissy Wolfersberger can
be reached at telephone number (913) 551-7864 and by electronic mail at
wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
III. What are the requirements for the regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the RHR
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Missouri's regional haze submittal?
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
D. BART
1. BART-Eligible Sources
2. BART-Subject Sources
3. BART Determinations
E. Long-Term Strategy
1. Technical Basis for Long-Term Strategy
2. Identification of Sources and Factors To Be Considered
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
G. Emissions Inventory
H. Monitoring Strategy
I. Consultation
J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
V. What action is EPA proposing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

EPA is proposing a limited approval of Missouri's August 5, 2009,
SIP revision, including supplemental information submitted on January
30, 2012, addressing regional haze under CAA sections 301(a) and
110(k)(6) because the revision as a whole strengthens the Missouri SIP.
This proposed rulemaking and the accompanying Technical Support
Document \1\ (TSD) explain the basis for EPA's proposed limited
approval action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ EPA's TSD to this action, entitled, ``Technical Support
Document for Missouri Regional Haze Submittal,'' is included in the
public docket for this action.
\2\ Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-
standing guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the
entire SIP submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and
prevent EPA from granting a full approval of the SIP revision.
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a separate action, EPA has proposed a limited disapproval of the
Missouri regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR
to meet certain regional haze requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not
proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on issues associated
with Missouri's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze SIP. Comments on
our proposed limited disapproval of Missouri's regional haze SIP may be
directed to the docket for that rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729.

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 emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust),
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)).
Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form fine
particulate matter which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing
light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible
distance that 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 \3\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR
35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \4\ which
impairment

[[Page 11960]]

results from man-made 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, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment''. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in
Section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze
SIP applies to all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands.\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires States to submit the first
implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among States, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, States need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the States and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. 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 particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Central Regional Air Planning Organization (CENRAP) RPO is a
collaborative effort of State governments, tribal governments, and
various Federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate
activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility
and other air quality issues in the Central United States. Member State
and tribal governments include: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Reservation, Grand
Portage Band of Chippewa Indians, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians,
Lower Sioux Indian communities, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas,
United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of
Oklahoma, Kialegee Triabal Town, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma,
Qua Paw Tribe, Santee Sioux Nation, Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, Sac
and Fox Nation of Missouri, and the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?

A. The CAA and the RHR

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

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

The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric or
unit for expressing visibility. This visibility metric expresses
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the
entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility expressed in dv is determined by using air
quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming
the value of light extinction using a logarithm function. The dv is a
more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than
light extinction itself because each dv change is an equal incremental
change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect
a change in visibility at one dv.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dv is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility
goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline,
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility.
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air
pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze.
The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e.,
anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each ten-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires States to determine
the

[[Page 11961]]

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 their Class I
areas. In addition, States must also develop an estimate of natural
visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the
national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the
natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment
and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates.
EPA has provided guidance to States regarding how to calculate
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in documents
titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions
under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located
at 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 SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired 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 the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

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

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the State.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, States also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``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. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts, a State must use the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of
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 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The State must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a

[[Page 11962]]

BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should consider
the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and
the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any exemption
threshold set by the State should not be higher than 0.5 dv.
In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations,
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States 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. States are free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each factor.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
State has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the
source.
As noted above, the RHR allows States to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 revising
the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration for CAIR.
70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that States
participating in the CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 CFR part 96
pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the
CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not
require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain
BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR is not applicable to emissions of PM, States
were still required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from
EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. Challenges to CAIR, however,
resulted in the remand of the rule to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to address
the interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the
eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). On
December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading programs in
the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable progress towards
the national goal than would BART in the States in which the Transport
Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also
proposed to revise the RHR to allow States to substitute participation
in the trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific
BART. EPA has not taken final action on that rule. Also on December 30,
2011, the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the
Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous
parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review.
In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the
court's resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME
Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The
court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer the
CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review
of the Transport Rule.

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)

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

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI) LTS

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the State's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the State must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the State
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a State's
LTS must report on both regional

[[Page 11963]]

haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision.

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

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

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

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

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Missouri's regional haze submittal?

On August 5, 2009, MDNR's Air Pollution Control Program submitted
revisions to the Missouri SIP to address regional haze in the State's
Class I areas as required by EPA's RHR.

A. Affected Class I Areas

Missouri has identified two Class I areas within its borders:
Hercules Glades Wilderness Area and Mingo National Wildlife Refuge.
Because both areas lie within Missouri's geographic boundaries,
Missouri is responsible for developing a regional haze SIP that
addresses these Class I areas. EPA proposes to approve Missouri's
identification of affected Class I areas. Missouri determined
appropriate RPGs and consulted with other States that impact the two
Class I areas. Missouri is responsible for developing long-term
emission strategies, its role in the consultation process, and how the
Missouri SIP meets the other requirements in EPA's regional haze
regulations.
The Missouri regional haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility
improvement at each of these Class I areas and a LTS to achieve those
RPGs within the first regional haze implementation period ending in
2018. In developing the LTS for each area, Missouri considered both
emission sources inside and outside of Missouri that may cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in Missouri's Class I areas. The
State also identified and considered emission sources within Missouri
that may cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas
in neighboring states as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). The CENRAP
RPO worked with the State in developing the technical analyses used to
make these determinations, including State-by-State contributions to
visibility impairment in specific Class I areas, which included the two
areas in Missouri and Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas in
Arkansas.

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

As required by the RHR and in accordance with EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, Missouri calculated baseline/current and natural
visibility conditions for each of its Class I areas, as summarized
below (and as further described in sections III.B.1 and III.B.2. of
EPA's TSD to this Federal Register action).
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Natural background visibility, as defined in EPA's 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected light
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE
monitors). As documented in EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA
allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to 2003 EPA
guidance to estimate the values that characterize the natural
visibility conditions of the Class I areas. One alternative approach is
to develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle components. Another alternative is to
use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by the
IMPROVE

[[Page 11964]]

Steering Committee in December 2005.\8\ The purpose of this refinement
to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate estimates
of the various factors that affect the calculation of light extinction.
Missouri opted to use the default estimates for natural conditions for
the 20 percent best days while using the ``new IMPROVE equation,'' for
the 20 percent worst days for its two Class I areas described in Table
1 below. Using this approach, natural visibility conditions using the
new IMPROVE equation were calculated separately for each Class I area
by CENRAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs)
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to
aid the creation of Federal and State implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review
of the science \9\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate, nitrate, and
organic carbon. It also adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon
(particulate organic matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New
terms are added to the equation to account for light extinction by sea
salt and light absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific
values are used for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to
atmospheric gases) to account for the site-specific effects of
elevation and temperature. Separate relative humidity enhancement
factors are used for small and large size distributions of ammonium
sulfate and ammonium nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the
remaining contributors, elemental carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine
soil, and coarse mass terms, do not change between the original and new
IMPROVE equations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in Appendix B.2 of the Missouri Regional Haze submittal
and in numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and
Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating
Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006.
Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 2006,
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis
Workgroup. September 2006 https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions
Missouri estimated baseline visibility conditions at the Hercules
Glades Wilderness area (Hercules Glades) using monitoring data from the
Hercules Glades IMPROVE monitoring site. Missouri estimated the
baseline visibility conditions at the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
(Mingo) using the Mingo IMPROVE monitoring site. As explained in
Section III. B., for the first regional haze SIP, baseline visibility
conditions are the same as current conditions. A five-year average of
the 2000 to 2004 monitoring data was calculated for each of the 20
percent worst and 20 percent best visibility days at each Missouri
Class I area. See page 2-8 of EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance.
Table 1 below specifies the 20 percent best and worst days for the
baseline period of 2000-2004 for Hercules Glades and Mingo.
3. Summary of Baseline and Natural Conditions
For the Hercules Glades Class I area, baseline visibility
conditions on the 20 percent worst days are approximately 26.75 dv. For
the Mingo Class I area, baseline visibility conditions on the 20
percent worst days are approximately 28.02 dv. Natural visibility
conditions for the Mingo Class I area is best represented by 12.40 dv
for the 20 percent worst days. The Hercules Glades Wilderness Class I
area is best represented by 11.30 dv for the 20 percent worst days. The
natural and baseline conditions for Missouri's Class I areas for both
the 20 percent worst and best days are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1--Natural Background and Baseline Conditions for the Missouri
Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average for Average for
Class I area 20% worst days 20% best days
(dv) (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Background Conditions:
Mingo............................... 12.40 3.59
Hercules Glades..................... 11.30 3.59
Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000-
2004):
Mingo............................... 28.02 13.76
Hercules Glades..................... 26.75 12.84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA proposes to approve Missouri's determination of baseline and
natural conditions.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the RPGs, Missouri considered the uniform rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve
that rate of progress over the period of the SIP to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance document, the uniform rate of progress is
not a presumptive target, and RPGs may be greater, lesser, or
equivalent to the glidepath.
The State's implementation plan presents two sets of graphs, one
for the 20 percent best days, and one for the 20 percent worst days,
for its two Class I areas. (Figures 8.1 and 8.2 of the Missouri SIP).
Missouri constructed the graph for the worst days (i.e., the glidepath)
in accordance with EPA's 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance by plotting a
straight graphical line from the baseline level of visibility
impairment for 2000-2004 to the level of visibility conditions
representing no anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for its two areas. For
the best days, the graph includes a horizontal, straight line spanning
from baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 to depict no degradation
in visibility over the implementation period of the SIP. Missouri's SIP
shows that the State's RPGs for its areas provide for improvement in
visibility for the 20

[[Page 11965]]

percent worst days over the period of the implementation plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility for the 20 percent best days over
the same period, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
For the Hercules Glades Class I area, the overall visibility
improvement necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference
between baseline visibility of 26.75 dv for the 20 percent worst days
and natural conditions of 11.30 dv, i.e., 15.45 dv. Over the sixty-year
period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average improvement of
0.258 dv per year to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the first
fourteen-year implementation period from 2004 to 2018, in order to
achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate
of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Hercules Glades, Missouri
would need to achieve at least 3.61 dv (i.e., 0.258 dv x 14 years =
3.61 dv) of visibility improvement from the 26.75 dv baseline in 2004,
resulting in visibility levels at or below 23.14 dv in 2018. As
discussed below in section IV. C, ``Reasonable Progress Goals,''
Missouri projects a 3.69 dv improvement to visibility from the 26.75 dv
baseline to 23.06 dv in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and
a 0.89 dv improvement to 11.95 dv from the baseline visibility of 12.84
dv for the 20 percent least impaired days.
For the Mingo Class I area, the overall visibility improvement
necessary to reach natural conditions is the difference between
baseline visibility of 28.02 dv for the 20 percent worst days and
natural conditions of 12.40 dv, i.e., 15.62 dv. Over the sixty-year
period from 2004 to 2064, this would require an average improvement of
0.260 dv per year to reach natural conditions. Hence, for the first
fourteen-year implementation period from 2004 to 2018, in order to
achieve visibility improvements at least equivalent to the uniform rate
of progress for the 20 percent worst days at Mingo, the State would
need to achieve at least 3.64 dv (i.e., 0.260 dv x 14 years = 3.64 dv)
of visibility improvement from the 28.02 dv baseline in 2004, resulting
in visibility levels at or below 24.37 dv in 2018. As discussed below
in section IV. C, ``Reasonable Progress Goals,'' Missouri projects a
4.31 dv improvement to visibility from the 28.02 dv baseline to 23.71
dv in 2018 for the 20 percent most impaired days, and a 0.92 dv
improvement to 12.84 dv from the baseline visibility of 13.76 dv for
the 20 percent least impaired days.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri's determination of the uniform
rate of progress for its Class I area.

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)

Missouri has established RPGs for its Class I areas for the first
ten year period of the plan. The RPGs provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the
implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period. As described above in the
Uniform Rate of Progress discussion and further detailed in the TSD for
today's action, Missouri has determined that the modeled rate of
visibility improvement by 2018, shown in Table 2 below, is reasonable
and has adopted it as the RPG for the listed Class I areas. The RPGs
demonstrate that Missouri's visibility impact will be below the uniform
rate of progress necessary to achieve natural visibility for the 20
percent worst days by the year 2064. Additionally, the modeled impact
on the 20 percent best days shows no degradation from baseline
conditions. The modeling inputs, methodologies, and consideration of
controls are further described in the Long-Term Strategy section under
IV.E. below.

Table 2--2018 Reasonable Progress Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Baseline
conditions, 2018 Modeled conditions, 2018 Modeled
Class I area 20% worst days 2018 URP 20% worst days 20% best days 20% best days
(dv) (goals) (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mingo........................... 28.02 24.37 23.71 13.76 12.84
Hercules Glades................. 26.75 23.14 23.06 12.84 11.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All units are in deciviews.

In establishing the RPGs for Missouri's Class I areas, the State
took into consideration the four statutory factors identified from 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. Missouri demonstrates that these
four factors were applied in determining control strategy options for
all source categories including point sources, area sources, on-road
mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources, which are also included in
the State's Long-Term Strategy analysis described in section IV. E of
this notice. That section identifies the control measures Missouri is
relying upon to achieve the RPGs. In addition to these four factors,
other related CAA related programs were evaluated to determine what
effect these programs have had or will have on existing and future
sources, and if any other control strategies would be reasonable in
terms of the four factors described above. For most sources, the State
determined that CAA programs or rules such as NSR permitting, NSPS
standards, MACT standards, on-road and off-road engine standards, Clean
Air Interstate Rule, fuel standards, and various State rules were
reasonable, and for these sources no other measures were deemed
appropriate based on the four factors. In addition, if other reasonable
control strategies are identified for these sources that contribute to
visibility impairment, beyond those implemented through this plan, the
State has committed to incorporate such strategies into future SIP
revisions to be considered along with the five-year progress reports.
To demonstrate that it properly analyzed the four factors, Missouri
relies upon the following: (1) An independent analysis completed by
Missouri; (2) a cost analysis by CENRAP; (3) a published report by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and (4) a description of the cost-
effectiveness and visibility impacts from the Clean Air Interstate Rule
on Missouri's Class I areas. Further detailed information is provided
in the TSD for today's action, as well as in the State's SIP.
Missouri's independent analysis primarily discusses the adequacy of
its current New Source Review permitting process in addressing
visibility impacts of new sources, and also provides a statewide point
source emissions analysis in consideration of the four factors.
Missouri describes that when the State performs a BACT analyses for

[[Page 11966]]

new sources, the State takes into account the same four factors that
are required for developing control strategies under a Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan. Additionally, all new stationary emission
sources are required to obtain a construction permit prior to
commencing construction and must ensure that no significant degradation
to visibility in Class I areas will occur. For EGU sources, Missouri
relies upon CAIR as part of its four factor analysis to demonstrate
that ongoing air pollution control programs are sufficient to meet the
2018 Uniform Rate of Progress for the Missouri Class I areas. For
existing non Electric Generating Units (non-EGU) sources, the State
demonstrates through a four factor analysis that existing SIP
requirements that cover broad non-EGU emission source categories
adequately address visibility impacts in Missouri's Class I areas.
Missouri reached this conclusion by analyzing non-EGU point sources
emitting greater than 50 tons per year of NOX,
SO2, and PM10. Missouri removed from
consideration sources that had already undergone a refined modeling
BART analysis or were located in the St. Louis PM2.5
nonattainment area, where sources had recently been subject to a RACT/
RACM analysis as part of the development of the attainment plan.
Missouri used two different methods to analyze the emissions from these
remaining sources. The first was to demonstrate on a mass basis, that
the level of emissions from these sources were not likely to have a
significant impact on visibility impairment on Missouri's Class I
areas. Thus, Missouri determined that researching and analyzing new
control requirements for these sources would not be noticeably
beneficial to visibility in either of Missouri's Class I areas. For the
second, the State conducted a Q/D review of these sources, which is an
acceptable screening tool for BART sources, that considers a source's
annual emissions in relationship to the distance from Class I areas. As
a result of this analysis, Missouri identified five sources that
required further examination: Royal Oak Enterprises; Aqualon Division
of Hercules; Lone Star Industries; Chemical Lime Company; and Natural
Gas Pipeline Company. Missouri determined that additional controls for
these sources were not warranted for one of the following reasons: (1)
Recent permit revisions limit the pollutant of concern; (2)
implementation of a compliance agreement that requires the shutdown of
emissions units coupled with operation limits on remaining units; (3) a
recent BACT analysis was undertaken; or (4) cost effective controls
were not available and the units are nearing the end of their useful
life. A more in-depth discussion of Missouri's approach is provided in
the State's technical supplement and EPA's TSD.
In addition, the State also relied upon a cost analysis provide by
the CENRAP RPO that examined the availability of controls in the CENRAP
states that impact visibility in Hercules Glades and Mingo. The
analysis primarily looked at controls on EGUs, industrial, commercial
and institutional (ICI) boilers, internal combustion engines, and
cement kilns. Most of the Missouri facilities identified in the
analysis were EGUs already participating in federal CAIR rule. The
State considered but did not adopt the recommendations for additional
controls for non-EGUs due to one or more of the following reasons:
Proposed controls are not cost effective
Emissions from sources within the source category are
below a threshold limit of 100 tons
Sources passed the BART screening analysis
Sources already installed controls required by the
NOX SIP Call.
In addition to the CENRAP analyses, the MRPO and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency published a report on the four-factor analysis
(referred to as the ``4-factor report'' in the docket). The report
examined the factors in a nine-state area (Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, and South
Dakota.). The 4-factor report primarily reviewed controls on EGUs; ICI
boilers; reciprocating engines and turbines, and mobile sources.
Missouri has determined based on the cost of compliance and remaining
useful life of these sources, that additional controls are not
reasonably available for non-EGU sources in the development of RPGs in
Missouri. Missouri specifically concludes from the report that
additional controls from ICI boilers, reciprocating engines, combustion
turbines and other point sources are not warranted based on cost of
controls and visibility improvement. Missouri determined that for EGUs,
emission reductions predicted to result from CAIR would be sufficient
for ensuring reasonable progress during the first implementation period
(between baseline and 2018).
EPA proposes to find that Missouri has appropriately established
goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural
visibility conditions. The goals provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility over the same period. In addition,
the State has demonstrated consideration of the four statutory factors,
consistent with EPA guidance, in developing the RPGs.

D. BART

BART is an element of Missouri's LTS for the first implementation
period. The BART evaluation process consists of three components: (a)
An identification of all the BART-eligible sources; (b) an assessment
of whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART; and (c) a
determination of the BART controls. These components as addressed by
Missouri and Missouri's findings are discussed as follows.
1. BART-Eligible Sources
The first phase of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the State's boundaries. Missouri identified its
BART-eligible sources by utilizing the three eligibility criteria in
the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and EPA's regulations (40 CFR
51.301): (1) One or more emission units at the facility fit within one
of the 26 categories listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) emission
unit(s) was construction on or after August 6, 1962, and was in
existence prior to August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any
visibility-impairing pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more
per year.
The BART Guidelines also direct states to address SO2,
NOX and direct PM (including both PM10 and
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairment pollutants, and to
exercise judgment in determining whether VOC or ammonia emissions from
a source impair visibility in an area. 70 FR 39160.
Missouri analyzed anthropogenic emissions for both VOC and
NH3 during their emission inventory review and determined
that these pollutants from the State's point sources are not
anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to any impairment of
visibility in Class I areas and should be exempt for BART purposes.
Missouri listed the following reasons for not performing a further
analysis on these pollutants after the emission inventory review: (1)
The majority of VOC emissions in Missouri are biogenic in nature and
specifically the areas near Mingo and Hercules Glades are very rich in
biogenic emissions (limited ability to reduce organic concentrations at
the Class I areas); (2) the largest areas of anthropogenic VOC
emissions in Missouri exist in the metropolitan areas (St. Louis and
Kansas City) where VOC emission control has been undertaken to address
ozone attainment issues

[[Page 11967]]

(meaning large VOC sources have already been controlled); (3) the other
category that would have substantial, uncontrolled VOC emissions is
charcoal kilns, Missouri required existing charcoal kilns to install
afterburners or shutdown noncompliant kilns as a result of 10 CSR 10-
6.330; (4) the overall ammonia inventory is very uncertain and the
amount of anthropogenic emissions at the sources that were BART-
eligible was relatively small; and (5) no additional sources were
identified that had greater than 250 tons per year NH3 and
required a subsequent BART analysis. After reviewing their sources the
State found 27 BART-eligible sources. These sources are listed in Table
3 below.

Table 3--Facilities With BART-Eligible Units in the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART-eligible emission
BART source category name SIC code Facility ID Facility name units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil-fuel fired steam electric 4911 29-071-0003 Ameren-Labadie........ Boiler 1--B1, Boiler
plants of more than 250 MMBTU 2--B2, Boiler 3--B3,
(1).* and Boiler 4--B4
(1)*............................... 4911 29-183-0001 Ameren-Sioux.......... Boiler 1--B1 and
Boiler 2--B2
(1)*............................... 4911 29-099-0016 Ameren-Rush Island.... Boiler 1--B1 and
Boiler 2--B2
(1)*............................... 4911 29-095-0031 Aquila-Sibley......... Boiler 3--5C
(1)*............................... 4911 29-143-0004 Associated Electric- Boiler 1--EP-01 and
New Madrid. Boiler 2--EP--02
(1)*............................... 4911 29-077-0039 City Utilities Boiler 1--E09
Springfield-Southwest.
(1)*............................... 4911 29-077-0005 City Utilities Utility Boiler 4--E07 and Utility
River. Boiler 5--
E08
(1)*............................... 4911 29-097-0001 Empire District Boiler--7
Electric-Asbury.
(1)*............................... 4911 29-083-0001 Kansas City Power and Boiler Unit 3--EP08
Light-Montrose.
(1)*............................... 4911 29-021-0004 Aquila-Lake Road...... Boiler 6--EP06
(1)*............................... 4911 29-175-0001 Associated Electric- Boiler 1--EP-01 and
Thomas Hill. Boiler 2--EP-02
(1)................................ 4911 29-095-0021 Trigen-Kansas City.... Boiler 1A
(1)................................ 4911 29-019-0002 City of Columbia Boiler 7--
Municipal Power Plant. EP02
(1)................................ 4911 29-195-0010 Marshall Municipal Coal-Fired Boiler--
Utilities. EP05
(1)................................ 4911 29-095-0050 Independence Power and Boiler 3--
Light-Blue Valley. EP05
Portland cement plants (4)......... 3241 29-099-0002 RC Cement............. 4-K-02 (Kiln)
(4)................................ 3241 29-173-0001 Continental Cement.... KP01 (Kiln)
(4)................................ 3241 29-163-0001 Holcim-Clarksville.... Kiln--EP14 and a
variety of supporting
units
Primary aluminum ore reduction 3334 29-143-0008 Noranda Aluminum...... Potlines 1 & 2--EP-59,
plants (7). 60, & 61, Carbon Bake
1 and 2 Stacks--EP 98
& 99, and a variety
of supporting units**
Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric 2873 29-163-0031 Dyno Nobel-Lomo Plant. Ammonia Oxidation
acid plants (10). Process--E01
Lime plants (12)................... 3274 29-186-0001 Mississippi Lime...... Peerless Rotary Kilns
3, 4, 5 & 6--EP-68-71
Primary lead smelters (17)......... 3339 29-099-0003 Doe Run-Herculaneum... Blast Furnace--EP059
(17)............................... 3339 29-093-0008 Doe Run-Glover........ Sinter Plant--EP-01
and Other Units at
the facility
Secondary metal production 3341 29-087-0001 Exide Technologies.... Main Stack--EP01
facilities (20).
(20)............................... 3339 29-093-0009 Doe Run-Buick......... Main Stack--EP08
Chemical Process Plants (21)....... 2879 29-127-0001 BASF Corporation...... PR08--HNO3 Storage
Tank, PR53/54
Incinerators, TC01
Incinerator, UTIL07--
2 Gas-fired boilers
Fossil-fuel boilers >250 MMBTUs per 4911 29-019-0004 University of Missouri- Boiler 10
hour (22). Columbia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* BART-eligible EGU units included in the CAIR assumed to be BART for SO2 and NOX.

EPA is proposing to find that the State appropriately identified
its BART-eligible sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) of
the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines.
2. BART-Subject Sources
The second phase of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow States to
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent with the
BART Guidelines, Missouri required each of its BART-eligible sources to
develop and submit dispersion modeling to assess the extent of their
contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas or
Missouri performed the analysis for the source.

[[Page 11968]]

a. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines allow states to use the CALPUFF \10\ modeling
system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility impacts
from a single source on a Class I area and to therefore, determine
whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is subject to
BART''. The Guidelines state that EPA believes CALPUFF is the best
regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a
single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162).
Missouri, in coordination with CENRAP, used the CALPUFF modeling system
to determine whether individual sources in Missouri were subject to or
exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer on the
following Web site: https://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BART Guidelines also recommend that States develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues
prior to modeling. The CENRAP States, including Missouri, developed a
``Protocol for the Application of CALPUFF for BART Analyses.''
Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, industrial sources, trade groups,
and other interested parties, actively participated in the development
and review of the CENRAP protocol.
Missouri performed an initial screening CALPUFF analysis for the
BART-eligible sources on the two Class I area's within the State along
with Upper Buffalo in Arkansas and Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, depending
on the individual source location. The screening runs took the maximum
visibility impacts and compared them to the contribution threshold
discussed below. Those sources with a maximum impact below the
contribution threshold were excluded from additional BART analysis
based on their minimal visibility impacts.
b. Contribution Threshold
For States using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``A single source that
is responsible for a 1.0 dv change or more should be considered to
`cause' visibility impairment.'' The BART Guidelines also state that
``the appropriate threshold for determining whether a source
`contributes to visibility impairment' may reasonably differ across
states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any threshold that you use for
determining whether a source `contributes' to visibility impairment
should not be higher than 0.5 dv.'' The BART Guidelines affirm that
States are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude that the
location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in proximity of a
Class I area justifies this approach.
Missouri used a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv for determining
which sources are subject to BART as there are a limited number of
BART-eligible sources in close proximity to each of the State's Class I
areas. EPA agrees with the State's rationale for choosing this
threshold value. For the Missouri sources that were shown to be
impacting the Class I areas, Missouri demonstrated that they were
located far from the Class I area and that the majority of the
individual BART-eligible sources had visibility impacts well below 0.5
d.
c. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
Missouri initially identified twenty seven facilities with BART-
eligible sources. Missouri chose to use multiple methods to exclude
sources from a full BART demonstration. Missouri grouped their sources
into four categories. The first category included the EGU sources that
relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and
NOX, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Prior to the
CAIR remand, the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy BART for
NOX and SO2 for affected CAIR EGUs was fully
approvable and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). As explained
above, we are not proposing to take action in today's rulemaking on
issues associated with Missouri's reliance on CAIR in its regional haze
SIP, including BART for SO2 and NOX for EGUs. In
a separate action, EPA has previously proposed a limited disapproval of
Missouri's regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's
regional haze SIP submittal arising from the remand by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA of CAIR
See, 76 FR 82219.
Given Missouri's reliance on CAIR to address the BART requirements
for SO2 and NOX, these facilities were only
required to evaluate PM emissions in their BART determinations. These
sources were modeled collectively for PM only and the modeling
demonstrated that the group of EGU sources as a whole contributed less
than the 0.5 dv contribution threshold for PM. Based on this analysis
the State excluded this group of sources from being BART-subject for
PM.
The second group of sources was those where the BART unit was
permanently shut down or where the source no longer had an operating
permit for the BART unit. These sources were excluded from further BART
analysis because the units in question would have to perform a BACT
analysis before resuming operations. The third group consisted of a
single source that had undergone a recent permit that required a BACT
review. Missouri performed a refined CALPUFF demonstration eliminating
this source from further BART analysis based on modeled visibility
impacts less than the 0.5 dv threshold. Missouri conducted a refined
BART modeling analysis using CALPUFF for the fourth group of sources
made up of the eight remaining sources. The sources are University of
Missouri-Columbia, Noranda, BASF Corporation-Palmyra, Independence
Power and Light-Blue Valley, Columbia Municipal Power Plant, Marshall
Municipal Utilities, Doe Run Buick, and Holcim-Clarksville. Using the
modeling methodology described above, Missouri excluded all but one
source, Holcim-Clarksville, from being BART-subject based on modeled
visibility impacts below 0.5 dv. The full description of the process
Missouri used to identify BART-subject sources is included in section K
of the TSD.
After review of the State's method for determining BART-subject
sources and the refined analysis of those sources, EPA is proposing to
find that the State appropriately identified all of the sources in the
State that are BART-subject in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)
the Regional Haze Rule and the BART Guidelines.
3. BART Determinations
In making BART determinations, CAA section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) require that States 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

[[Page 11969]]

improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result
from the use of such technology. This five step analysis is commonly
referred to as a ``five factor analysis.''
As stated above, Missouri only had one BART source, Holcim-
Clarksville, that required a full five factor analysis. As described
above and in detail in the TSD, the remaining subject to BART sources
were either included in CAIR or have been exempted from a BART analysis
due to lack of visibility impacts above the contribution threshold,
eligible units were shutdown, or BACT had been applied.
For Holcim-Clarksville, Missouri required the source to submit a
full BART analysis which considered the five factors. Holcim submitted
three separate BART analyses, the first in April 2008 with revised
submittals in June and July 2008. The submittals addressed the five
factors including looking at the various available control options for
SO2 and NOX control. For SO2, three
technically feasible options were identified, wet lime scrubbing, fuel
substitution and dry lime scrubbing. For NOX, two feasible
control technologies were identified: mid-kiln firing and selective
noncatalytic reduction.
For SO2, wet lime scrubbing could provide reductions of
95 percent resulting in actual SO2 reductions of 10,326
tons/yr at a cost of $2,428/ton of SO2 removed. Visibility
modeling of this control technology was performed assuming a 87.5
percent control efficiency resulting in modeled visibility improvements
between 0.4-0.53 dv at the three Class 1 areas evaluated. Dry lime
scrubbing (DLS) was also evaluated using control efficiencies estimated
up to 30 percent resulting in actual reductions of 3,272 tons/yr at a
cost of $4,500/ton of SO2 removed. DLS was modeled assuming
a control efficiency of 25 percent resulting in visibility improvements
of 0.11-0.14 dv at the three Class 1 areas evaluated. Fuel substitution
provided 23-50 percent control, depending on the substitute fuel
chosen. Reductions of actual SO2 emissions between 2,641
tons and 5,741 tons could be achieved at a cost of $1,489/ton to
$4,741/ton SO2 reduced. Visibility improvements at the three
Class I areas ranged from 0.09-0.14 dv using the 23 percent reduction
to 0.23-0.31 dv using a 45 percent reduction.
For NOX both mid-kiln firing and selective noncatalytic
reduction were identified as viable control options. Low-NOX
burners, Cement Kiln Dust Insufflation, and Synfuel were noted as
controls already used at the plant. Both mid-kiln firing and selective
noncatalytic reduction were estimated to provide emissions reductions
of 20 percent resulting in actual NOX reductions of 1,283
tons/yr. The mid-kiln firing was estimated to cost $464/ton while
selective noncatalytic reduction was estimated to cost approximately
$2,200/ton. With identical control efficiencies both options result in
modeled visibility improvements of 0.01-0.09 dv at the three Class I
areas evaluated.
Missouri comprehensively reviewed the source's three BART analyses
and determined that the mid-kiln firing of tires (using 12 percent
total heat input substitution) and a switch from petroleum coke as the
primary kiln fuel to 3 percent sulfur coal (along with the tire derived
fuel for NOX control) would constitute BART for this source.
For the SO2 control, Missouri eliminated the two scrubbing
options based on cost per ton of cement produced (~$15-20/ton
produced.) The cost of the selected control for SO2
reductions was calculated at $1,148/ton or about $3/ton cement
produced. For NOX the State was concerned with the use of
SNCR on the wet kiln and the MKF option provided the same control
effectiveness. Thus, Missouri decided the certainty of reductions
associated with mid-kiln firing coupled with the existing controls at
the facility was the best option after considering cost and certainty
of available controls as provided by the kiln designer. As part of the
BART analysis, Missouri required the source to pursue more aggressive
emission limits than originally recommended based on the cost analysis
of feasible controls. The required controls will result in a 20 percent
reduction of NOX and a 27 percent reduction of
SO2 from the maximum thirty-day average emissions using the
CEM data. The full description of the BART analysis for Holcim-
Clarksville is included in the TSD accompanying this notice.
To incorporate the emission rates, compliance schedule, monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and enforceability requirements, as defined
by the CAA and Federal regulations promulgated at 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv) and (v) as well as the BART Guidelines, the State
entered into a Consent Agreement with Holcim-Clarksville on April 19,
2009. The Consent Agreement was submitted to EPA for SIP approval as
part of the State's RH SIP submittal (Appendix S), which EPA is
proposing to approve in this notice. The Consent Agreement is
enforceable by the State, and upon approval into the State's SIP, is
enforceable by EPA. The emission rates, or work practices, included in
the Consent Agreement are summarized below. The Consent Agreement
requires the Holcim-Clarksville Plant kiln system (Emission Point ID
EP-14 main kiln stack) to meet the following rates, or work practices,
within four years after the EPA approves the State's RH SIP or
expeditiously as practicable:
(1) NOX--42,287 lb/day using a thirty day rolling
average.
(2) SO2--58,787 lb/day using a thirty day rolling
average.
(3) The facility must monitor using existing CEMS.
(4) The facility must comply with 40 CFR, part 60, appendix F or an
equivalent procedure for quality assurance demonstrations of the CEMS.
(5) The facility must retain records demonstrating compliance for a
period of no less than five years.
(6) An annual report detailing daily and thirty day rolling average
SO2 and NOX emission rates must be submitted to
Missouri starting 1 year and 60 days after EPA SIP approval.
Missouri documented, via CALPUFF modeling, an improvement in
visibility at affected Class I areas using the BART emissions limits
for Holcim-Clarksville. While post-BART control modeled impacts at
Mingo are still slightly above 0.5 dv, the overall modeled impairment
has significantly improved with the proposed BART controls.
EPA is proposing to find that the State has met the requirements
for establishing BART emission limitations and schedules for compliance
with those emission limitations for each BART-eligible source that may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any Class I area, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e) and
the BART Guidelines. EPA is proposing to approve all required elements
of Missouri's Regional Haze SIP related to BART for non-EGU sources,
including, specifically, the BART emission rates, compliance schedules,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting as required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)
and the BART Guidelines, and the Consent Agreement for Holcim-
Clarksville.

E. Long-Term Strategy

1. Technical Basis for Long-Term Strategy
Missouri's plan adequately addresses the LTS requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii). Missouri's LTS analysis for the first implementation
period addresses the emissions reductions from Federal, State, and
local controls that take effect in the State from the end of the
baseline period starting in 2004 until 2018. The Missouri LTS was
developed by the State, in

[[Page 11970]]

coordination with the CENRAP RPO, through an evaluation of the
following components: (1) Identification of the emission units within
Missouri and in surrounding states that likely have the largest impacts
currently on visibility at the State's two Class I areas; (2)
estimation of emissions reductions for 2018 based on all controls
required or expected under Federal and state regulations for the 2004-
2018 period (including BART); (3) comparison of projected visibility
improvement with the uniform rate of progress for the State's Class I
areas; and (4) application of the four statutory factors in the
reasonable progress analysis for the identified emission units to
determine if additional reasonable controls were required. In this
analysis the State demonstrates that the compilation of State-specific
control measures relied on by the State achieves its RPGs.
The CENRAP applied the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
extensions (CAMx) and Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) models in
the modeling simulation. CAMx is a computer modeling system for the
integrated assessment of photochemical and particulate air pollution.
CAMx incorporates all of the technical attributes demanded of state-of-
the-art photochemical grid models, including two-way grid nesting, a
subgrid-scale Plume-in-Grid module to treat early dispersion of
chemistry of point source NOX plumes, and a fast chemistry
solver. The CMAQ model is an eulerian model that simulates the
atmospheric surface processes affecting the transport, transformation
and deposition of air pollutants and their precursors. An eulerian
model computes the numerical solution of partial differential equations
of plumes on a fixed grid. The use of these models to determine impacts
from emissions within state on visibility impairment is approved by
EPA. Missouri documented and EPA has reviewed the selection of the
episodes, modeling domain, emissions inventories, emissions modeling,
meteorological inputs, and model performance evaluation. More detailed
information on methodologies is provided in Appendix F of the state's
submittal.
2. Identification of Sources and Factors to be Considered
Missouri has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv-v). The
State is required to identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment considered by the State in developing its LTS. The State
should consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and
area sources. The State must consider, at a minimum, the following
factors in developing its long-term strategy: (1) Emission reductions
due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to
address reasonably attributable visibility impairment; (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 emission 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.
The State's technical analysis identifies all anthropogenic sources
of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its LTS.
In this analysis, the State considered the impacts from major and minor
stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources. The State
documents the ``on the books'' ongoing emissions control strategies
considered in the modeling that includes the following:
Clean Air Interstate Rule
Best Available Control Technology
Tier 2 Federal Mobile Source Emission Standards
Tier 4 Nonroad Emission Standards
NOX SIP Call
St. Louis PM2.5 SO2 and
NOX RACT
Illinois Multi-Pollutant Regulation
In a separate notice proposing limited disapproval of the regional
haze SIPs of a number of States, EPA noted that these States relied on
the trading programs of CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the State-adopted
reasonable progress goals. (76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011). In that
notice, we proposed a limited disapproval of Missouri's LTS insofar as
it relied on CAIR. For that reason, we are not taking action on that
aspect of the long-term strategy in this notice. Comments on that
proposed determination may be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0729.
In development of the LTS, Missouri also took into account measures
to mitigate the impacts of construction activities through the
implementation of the NSR permitting program. Source retirement and
replacement schedules of sources were included in the development of
the future year inventory modeling scenario. Missouri has documented
that emissions limitations and control measures utilized in the
modeling are enforceable by Missouri law through section 643 of the
Revised Statutes of Missouri. These rules can be found in Appendix V of
the State's submittal.
The emission inventory utilized for Missouri takes into account the
net effect on visibility resulting from projected changes to emissions
including changes to point, area and mobile source inventories by the
end of the first implementation period resulting from population
growth; industrial, energy and natural resources development; land
management; and air pollution control. The net effect on visibility in
Missouri Class I areas resulting from these emission differences is
discussed in the CENRAP Technical Support Document (Appendix F of the
State's submittal).
Missouri has also met the requirement of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E)
to consider smoke management techniques for the purposes of
agricultural and forestry management in developing the LTS. The purpose
of the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) adopted by Missouri is to identify
the responsibilities of MDNR, FLMs, and state land managers to
coordinate procedures that mitigate the impacts on public health,
safety, and visibility of prescribed fire and wildland fire used for
resource benefits. This plan is designed to meet the policies of the
EPA's Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires
(April 1998) and addresses smoke management through various procedures
and requirements in place at various agencies throughout the State.

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)

EPA's visibility regulations direct States to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze, as
explained in sections III.F. and III.G. of this action. Under EPA's
RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a State SIP must address any
integral vistas identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An
integral vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from
within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or
panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal
area.'' Visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area includes any
integral vista associated with that area. The FLMs did not identify any
integral vistas in Missouri. In addition, none of the Class I areas in
Missouri is experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its sources affected by
the RAVI provisions. Therefore, the Missouri regional haze SIP
submittal does not explicitly

[[Page 11971]]

address the two requirements regarding coordination of the regional
haze SIP with the RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions. We propose to
find that this submittal appropriately supplements and augments the
Missouri's RAVI visibility provisions to address regional haze by
updating the monitoring and LTS provisions as summarized in this
notice.

G. Emissions Inventory

Missouri was required to develop a statewide emissions inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. This inventory must include
baseline year emissions, emissions for the most recent year that data
is available, and estimates of future year emissions. The State
provided an inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. As required, the inventory includes emissions for a
baseline year (2002), the most recent year for which data are available
at the time, and estimates of future year (2018) projected emissions
along with a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
As specified in the EPA guidance document, Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations
(August 2005), Missouri's regional haze emissions inventory includes
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fine particulate
(PM2.5), coarse particulate (PM10), and ammonia
(NH3). Missouri used the CENRAP Base G emissions inventory
for both the baseline year of 2002 and future year of 2018 as described
in Table 4 below. Missouri has committed to periodic updates to the
emissions inventory and EPA believes that the State has met the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). More detailed information
regarding the methodologies used in the current emissions estimates
including the future year projections are further described in Chapter
7.0 and Appendix H 1-8 of the State's plan.

Table 4--Missouri 2002-2018 Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source sector NOX (TPY*) SO2 (TPY) PM10 (TPY) PM2.5 (TPY) CO (TPY) VOC (TPY) NH3 (TPY)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Missouri Emissions Inventory Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point EGU**..................................... 145,437.9 272,128.1 4,093.2 2,523.2 11,357.0 1,796.4 19.2
Point NEGU***................................... 36,143.8 97,117.0 15,092.2 7,045.3 107,756.3 38,473.6 6,233.9
Area............................................ 31,337.8 48,510.9 29,975.9 26,385.8 135,292.9 204,940.2 2,276.7
Offroad Mobile.................................. 99,305.6 9,350.5 13,063.5 11,985.3 754,272.8 141,183.3 73.9
Onroad Mobile................................... 189,852.3 5,353.5 4,486.6 3,297.4 1,585,277.1 97,245.6 5,993.5
Fire............................................ 3,539.6 936.2 12,407.2 10,642.3 151,389.6 12,867.9 1,447.2
Ag and Soil Ammonia............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 152,904.1
Fugitive Dust................................... 0.0 0.0 95,240.0 19,006.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Road Dust....................................... 0.0 0.0 367,390.3 55,011.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Biogenics....................................... 22,518.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 134,123.4 1,428,260.0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................... 528,135.5 433,396.3 541,748.9 135,897.8 2,879,469.2 1,924,767.1 168,948.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Missouri Emissions Inventory Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point EGU....................................... 84,619.8 289,330.1 18,958.2 17,036.6 15,752.7 2,080.5 874.4
Point NEGU...................................... 49,290.8 66,731.1 23,598.8 10,171.7 184,350.9 54,908.6 8,600.2
Area............................................ 35,212.8 49,726.1 29,193.0 25,528.5 120,114.9 265,737.4 4,411.8
Offroad Mobile.................................. 59,624.9 565.2 8,371.3 7,675.0 739,932.9 72,794.1 84.8
Onroad Mobile................................... 50,860.9 797.4 1,415.5 1,415.5 895,481.6 39,672.3 8,316.0
Fire............................................ 3,539.6 936.2 12,407.2 10,642.3 151,389.6 12,867.9 1,447.2
Ag and Soil Ammonia............................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 182,451.5
Fugitive Dust................................... 0.0 0.0 106,045.3 21,147.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Road Dust....................................... 0.0 0.0 313,576.4 46,957.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
Biogenics....................................... 22,518.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 134,123.4 1,428,260.0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................... 305,667.4 408,086.1 513,565.8 140,574.6 2,241,146.0 1,876,320.7 206,185.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tons per Year.
** Electric Generating Unit.
*** Non-Electric Generating Unit.

H. Monitoring Strategy

The State's plan must include a monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment
that is representative of all Class I areas within the State and/or
summarize monitoring strategy of States with affected Class I areas.
Missouri demonstrates compliance with this requirement through
participation in the IMPROVE network. In Missouri, IMPROVE sites are
located at Hercules Glades and Mingo Class I areas. An IMPROVE protocol
sampler is located at the site near El Dorado Springs. Missouri commits
to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) to report to EPA
visibility data for each of Missouri's Class I areas annually. EPA
proposes to find that Missouri's monitoring strategy meets all
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).

I. Consultation

The State of Missouri has met the FLM consultation requirement. 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that States provide a description of how they
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. A description of the
consultation process is provided in Appendix E of the State SIP, United
States Central Class I Areas Consultation Plan, Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, 2007. In addition, the minutes from those meetings
are in

[[Page 11972]]

Appendix U of the State's plan. EPA believes that Missouri has
adequately responded to the comments received from the FLMs and from
EPA.
Regional haze SIPs must also provide procedures for continuing
consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR
51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and five-year
progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having
the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I
areas. The State of Missouri has committed to continuing to coordinate
and consult with the FLMs during the development of future progress
reports and plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of
programs having the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in
the mandatory Class I Federal areas. EPA proposes to find that the
State of Missouri has satisfied the consultation requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 (i).
As discussed in IV. E above, the as part of the long-term strategy
requirements of the rule, provision 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) specifically
describes that, where the State has emissions that are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area
located in another State or States, the State must consult with other
State(s) in order to develop coordinated emissions management
strategies. The State must consult with any other State having
emissions that are regionally anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State.
Further, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) states that where other States cause
or contribute to impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area, the
State must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emissions reductions
needed to meet the progress goal for the area. If the State has
participated in a regional planning process, the State must ensure it
has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.
EPA proposes that Missouri has met these requirements. Missouri has
consulted with other States/tribes in CENRAP, Visibility Improvement
State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), the Midwest
Regional Planning Organization (MRPO), FLMs and EPA Regions 5, 6 and 7
on development of coordinated strategies for Central Class I areas that
include Mingo, Hercules Glades, Upper Buffalo, and Caney Creek.
Technical analyses, such as Area of Influence (AOI) and source
apportionment, were developed as part of consultation planning to
determine contributing states and are documented in Appendix E of the
State's plan. Missouri provided the Regional Haze Plan to the FLMs for
review on August 23, 2007, and notified the FLMs that a public hearing
would be held on this plan at a later date. The FLMs provided early
comments on the draft plan and a conference call between Missouri,
FLMs, and EPA Region 7 was conducted on September 2, 2007, to discuss
the comments. Missouri considered all comments the FLMs provided on the
early draft of the plan. Regional modeling and other findings were used
to develop RPGs for the Arkansas and Missouri Class I areas based on
the existing and proposed controls through both State and Federal
requirements. It was also determined that these RPGs will meet the
established URP goals by 2018. The consultation process determined
which States significantly impacted the Arkansas and Missouri Class I
areas. The State's coordination with FLMs on long-term strategy
development is described in Chapter 11 of the State's plan. The
consultation was completed based on a determination that reasonable
progress was achieved by contributing states.
Additionally, the State entered into a consultation process with
Oklahoma and Minnesota. The consultation processes for the Wichita
Mountains (WIMO) Class I area in Oklahoma was completed prior to the
August 5, 2009 submittal of this plan. The Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality indicated their belief that Missouri sources
impact WIMO. However, in response to the Oklahoma consultation letter,
Missouri replied with a letter recommending that the rationale for
determining States contributing to impact on WIMO deserved further
examination. As further described in Chapter 4.2 of the State's plan,
Missouri determined, in part, from a Particulate Matter Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) analysis that it is not clear that
additional controls in Missouri would be reasonable to address
visibility in WIMO. Based on the PSAT analysis presented, Missouri
described that over half the elevated point-source impacts to WIMO are
due to sources in Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana and most of the area
source impacts are due to Oklahoma and Texas sources. Missouri
determined that controls appear likely to be more efficient in those
states, on a cost-per-ton basis, than additional controls in Missouri.
Therefore no additional controls on Missouri sources were required and
Oklahoma and did not request any specific additional controls.
Minnesota identified Missouri as a contributing State based on Lake
Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) 2002-2003 Trajectory analysis
or LADCO 2018 PSAT modeling analysis which showed over a 5 percent
total contribution to haze at either of Minnesota's Class I areas.
Missouri noted that the criteria are met marginally at 5.2 percent for
2018 PSAT for the Boundary Waters area only. Missouri cited that
separate analyses conducted as part of the Causes of Haze II Study, and
affirmed by the CENRAP PSAT and Area of Influence analysis, indicate
high impact from Minnesota sources, with only a small impact by out of
state sources. Based on these analyses, Missouri concluded that
additional controls on Missouri's sources are not necessary due to the
expected minimal visibility impact at the Boundary Waters Class I area.
EPA also notes that Minnesota did not request any specific additional
controls from Missouri. EPA proposes that Missouri has met the
consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and has also
demonstrated that its implementation plan includes all measures
necessary to obtain its fair share of emission reductions needed to
meet RPGs as required in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

Missouri is required to commit to meet the SIP revision schedule as
determined by the RHR. The State makes its commitment to meet this
requirement in Chapter 11 and 12 of its plan. EPA believes the State's
commitment to meet these schedules meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(f) and (g) of the RHR.
The State affirmed its commitment to submitting a progress report
in the form of a SIP revision to EPA every five years following the
initial submittal of the Missouri regional haze SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs each mandatory Class I area
located within the State of Missouri and in each mandatory Class I area
located outside of the State which may be affected by emissions from
within Missouri.
If another State's regional haze SIP identifies that Missouri's SIP
needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after appropriate
consultation Missouri agrees, today's action may be revisited, or
additional information and/or

[[Page 11973]]

changes will be addressed in the five-year progress report SIP
revision.

VI. What action is EPA proposing?

EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the Missouri
SIP submitted by the State of Missouri on August 5, 2009, and
supplemented on January 30, 2012. In a separate action, EPA has
proposed a limited disapproval of the Missouri regional haze SIP
because of deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP submittal
arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional haze
requirements. 76 FR 82219. We are not proposing to take action in
today's rulemaking on issues associated with Missouri's reliance on
CAIR in its regional haze SIP.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule 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, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' 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. EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.

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

Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective

[[Page 11974]]

and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

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

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Dated: February 15, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2012-4681 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.