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. 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11959 

1EPA’s TSD to this action, entitled, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for Missouri Regional Haze 

Submittal,’’ is included in the public docket for this 

action. 

2Under 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 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. 

3 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

4Areas 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 

Continued 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

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). 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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.’’ 

5Albuquerque/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). 

6The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

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. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm 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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11961 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 

September 2003 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze 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. 

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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8The 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. 9The 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. http:// 

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 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

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

Class I area 

Average for 

20% worst 

days (dv) 

Average for 

20% best days 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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

Class I area 

Baseline 

conditions, 

20% worst 

days (dv) 

2018 URP 

2018 

Modeled 20% 

worst days 

(goals) 

Baseline 

conditions, 

20% best days 

(dv) 

2018 

Modeled 20% 

best days 

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 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 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 source category name SIC 

code Facility ID Facility name BART-eligible emission units 

Fossil-fuel fired steam electric 

plants of more than 250 MMBTU 

(1).* 

4911 29–071–0003 Ameren-Labadie .............................. Boiler 1—B1, Boiler 2—B2, Boiler 

3—B3, 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-New Madrid ..... Boiler 1—EP–01 and Boiler 2— 

EP—02 

(1)* ................................................... 4911 29–077–0039 City Utilities Springfield-Southwest Boiler 1—E09 

(1)* ................................................... 4911 29–077–0005 City Utilities Springfield-James 

River.

Utility Boiler #4—E07 and Utility 

Boiler #5—E08 

(1)* ................................................... 4911 29–097–0001 Empire District Electric-Asbury ........ Boiler—7 

(1)* ................................................... 4911 29–083–0001 Kansas City Power and LightMontrose.Boiler Unit 3—EP08 

(1)* ................................................... 4911 29–021–0004 Aquila-Lake Road ............................ Boiler 6—EP06 

(1)* ................................................... 4911 29–175–0001 Associated Electric-Thomas Hill ...... Boiler 1—EP–01 and Boiler 2—EP– 

02 

(1) ..................................................... 4911 29–095–0021 Trigen-Kansas City .......................... Boiler 1A 

(1) ..................................................... 4911 29–019–0002 City of Columbia Municipal Power 

Plant.

Boiler #7—EP02 

(1) ..................................................... 4911 29–195–0010 Marshall Municipal Utilities .............. Coal-Fired Boiler—EP05 

(1) ..................................................... 4911 29–095–0050 Independence Power and LightBlue Valley.Boiler #3—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 

plants (7).

3334 29–143–0008 Noranda Aluminum .......................... Potlines 1 & 2—EP–59, 60, & 61, 

Carbon Bake 1 and 2 Stacks— 

EP 98 & 99, and a variety of supporting units** 

Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid 

plants (10).

2873 29–163–0031 Dyno Nobel-Lomo Plant .................. Ammonia Oxidation 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 facilities (20).3341 29–087–0001 Exide Technologies ......................... Main Stack—EP01 

(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 hour (22).

4911 29–019–0004 University of Missouri-Columbia ...... Boiler 10 

* 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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10Note 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: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

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. 

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 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 

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. 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11973 

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.’’ 

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 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0150, FRL–9638–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Iowa 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: 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: 

http://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 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 http://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 

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/

dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://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 http:// 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS